CO' '  -t  c: 


ccc< 


^^ 


<LCC- 


CC<c 

r  , 


cc  ■■ 


St 


<^  cd  c: 


{■:?<.    CC  W3fL 

X::C-CC''  CiC  . 


ncc 


.-   C,  ;<"   Cr.C.     ■.C'CC 

V    ,c-    <:   c'C  ■  -c-<tc 

c       C     c;    cc    <7:fi"< 

•<s      C  C<iC,  C'«-  « 


i.-.<.  CXC.  <:<-^ 


xkc  C-s ^cc^cccc,  ^c 


'3-- 


c     «.«,t.cc 


w 


".  ■  <_  c  ^i  <CC  c 
■  <  c  c  «Ca  tcrc:  ( 
•\  ■  <  c  «r<  rcc   Cc 

I  tCC     < 

V     c    ^  «:  (CC  < 

•C'C  c  <:/cc  <  ■ 

■  .t  c,...<^<:'-fc  c  '. 

'.    C     C     Kj€^'«    <     :< 

-  ^-- r  c^d'C 

^  x:    CX;-c<:  <r  , 


c  c 


as  •  ' 

xr;c<r. 

■c<-  '«. 
cc  CiC'  > 

<crcc 

<s  cc  « 

-    G  cc   C 


ic   s<-<-  c 


.««af  'fti'w 


-    <<<:  <:<   «L 


.  «<:  tec    <^<5 


LINCOLN  ROOM 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


<^vC  Cc<.  c  c^Tjr;  r^n 


:  r^:^'^ 


"^'^^^^CL.  <i -c  <^  c 


^.>S5:>^?<0c: 


r  ifcc  c 


MEMORIAL 

//>^  C/«xf  of  1901 


.<LvCC 


-  <t  c  t<  •" 

r  W : 


founded  by 

HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 

and 

HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


(  <     <!C  '•  Cc 

"    c  f     ^-^  -  "" 

c   c     «KI<''' '  < 

<r  c  «r   ^  < 

<     r     <c: 
Vc  <     « 


C<C 


<  \^  c 


,  C-      c  c 
-_Ci<rf 

.(^■<cr 

_(<"  cr 

..  .  '    I'C 

.  '.  Cc    , 


^'«3:  c. 


«5<:c    < 


.    ^  ■ '  <1  C    <r  r 

:  «S..c^c.C  «::^ 
'    '     <r  c 

.  c  c  cc 

c:CC    <r.c   ^^4.    ( 

^.'CC.       <3CC       <c.-\ 


r^ 


«c  cc«r  v  <?f  c 

«:-(v^rcc:c    <^C<:r 

«c-  vC^^<-  ,cr  <"  <:c^c 
«,  ><r  c  <-c  c:  crccc 
€^     C    c     cc    c      <:c.c 

cfv  c  c  CC  <r    c:c  c 

r^<.c     C      C.C     c     «^»c< 
.    <:<     c      cc.   c    <ff«- 

I  <:    «'  c  €f-^< 
'<  c      <cr  c  <?.'<• 

CCfC     <?  <  oc^    « 

cere     cc   c«:r^    4 


^k:-^  «:-     c     c   <r  <  <•   « 
^c^flc     c    c  c:>  <:  <r. 


ccc 


c«  cc  c    cf  d  c  «f'  f  5^^ 

c'xTc    ci_.c  c.<t^:   <<^ 

C'CcC'     c    c  <'«;'''   c  CCc 

.  C%'c    CCTflS 


<  c  c^cc  e  c 

cc  c:  c-<.  <rcc 

.c  c  cr  c 'C  <'  c 

c  c  c  r--  c  <::  c 

,v  c  C  e  C  IC  < 
'   '   -  -    c-  <:    " 


<:c  <r 


«  «:    ^ 

1  <  c    ct  . 
'  cc  <«:  ^  c 

XC  C<C    c  -  C  ^P>^ 

cxcc«r^  re  otrcc 
rccotrcfc 

t<<  •^..  <;.K\ 


X<    CC    * 

^;;'^  7>r  «-<:  <-<r     c        c 


C  .4.        «-  < 

.<    <r<  < 


coo. 


CC<'.' 


cr^  err  <r.  c  c  r4r  c^ 

x<-  ^    c«.  <:c     f  c  «:••  <r4 
:<:<«:'     cor.  _c.    f  <^«P-'^ 

:«  ccc.  <X'.  o     ccsc  <L^ « c  ^<  c< 


-re    OTIC  ^   *^^  „ 


cc  ^Xfcr-f  <  c  ^'x:  ^  cc  <:  ' 
<-c  c<.«:«f » cc  C(C  <c  <<c  4::  ^ 
CC  CSXC<t  CJCC  C(C    ^ cc  C     i 


U    ci^^^V^*   CC     «  c^  < 


/  cc     CC  <c<a 


^  <  ^ 


^^   '^ 


c<:;  <c<r«L_ 

CC  <^-'^<^     '-t  < 


<5;i  cciK     CC 


".    C   c 

_     .  «»<<      c 

<^X     c 

:vc,.-.  "^c.  ^ 


_-   <■•  c  c      Cf    <r      c  ..<rc 
C^c^  <r     <  <:    CC.C 


<<■<<■ 

■<r    CifCC      ■ 

z-  <<s<    ■ 

c  «:<     ■ 
..  <  '<.<- 

r  (CC     ' 

■<:c    ' 

"      ' .  ;<;'<: 
•   •■<:.<     <• 


<f<rc.  CC  C40I 

^'^      CC     c 
_      cC 

<:fiC    CC  c<:5 


c  c  < 

cc<: 


Vc-^c^ 


C   <3 

'  c 
*  c 
.    c 
.    <r 

C  C 

c    - 


'^-*^  .cc< 

/c  r    . 

«:  CC  c  f 

'jr€X  c    c 

c  <r  c     ' 

"c  <?  c     < 

'C  CC    c      c 
c  CC  c    '  c 

<   Cf      C       '  <^ 
X  Cf      c  <- 

C  Cf      <'  < 

C  C(-    ,C       ^   < 


:  cc: 

C<    Ct'-'<^ 

CC  c«r  . 


«  C 
:<    c 

,4rc.;  c' 

<1  C:    c 


<Ccc  c?    <:, 

CC  C'     ^ 


-  CC  c 


CC.C  c 


c  <r  <:c 


..  c  <  CC     c^t<  5  ; 
^  c  c  c:c  <    c<r«  ^<  '^ 

^  cc^c        «>-«r  c 


CiCCC<C    C 


C    <^      C'f 


C  c:  C'X 
C  C  <:c  4 


^•rccr  c-  . 

Lq<  ce.:     "^-/^     < 
Icoccc      «:•<-, 

<ro  er    <c  c    cc  r 

<  cc'C       C   <       CccCc 
C=r.<  ^     c       Crrc- 

c-rc    d-rr  CcCC    ' 


:  c  C'     ^ 

-5-<j     C  C  'X         C    < 

fc    CCf'c- 

■'.  <  «.     C(  '"■'        ^  *c 
'il  c-     Cf  c        ^  •■  •'C 

5  c:    o  c 


rccx 

tec  c 


CC  c  c 


r  CC  <r; 


^^.^ 


c<:  c  ^ 

.   «;<C  <<• 


<  «rC  cftf 
\  c  c  tM'. 
C  CC  <« 
C      CC  Cc'C 

f  ■  c  c  c  .-c  ■ 

t'     re    CCcC,;. 

"    (C  C^-'C:;' 


'C  <^(<i;;M^ 


^      1 


;l-^.^ 


T  R  I  ^  L 


OF 


JOHN    H.    SURRATT 


IN 


THE  CRIMINAL  COURT 


FOK 


THE    DISTRICT    OF    COLUMBIA, 


Hon.  GEORGE  P.  EISHEE  Presiding. 


V  O  I.  U  M  E     I . 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMEKT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 
186  7. 


INDEX  TO  VOL.  I. 


Government  witnesses. 


Page. 

Barnes,  General  J.  K 121,  122 

Blinn,  C.  H 174 

Bell.W.H 247,252 

Benson,  Mrs.  M 352 

Bunker,  G.W 329 

Baker,  L.  B 315 

Barton,  George  D 484 

Bates,  D.  H 506,  514 

Branson,  Mrs.  Mary 523 

Conger,  Colonel  E.J 305 

Cooper,  R.H 183 

Campbell,  R.  A 192 

Conger,  William  R 357 

Chester,  S.  K 324 

Cleaver,  William  E 204 

Cbapin,  George  F 236 

Coleman,  W.H 520 

Gushing,  George  W.,  jr 523 

Dye,  Sergeant  S.  M 131 

Dawson,  Charles 337 

Dunn,  Charles  C 436 

Ferguson,  J.  M 129 

Fletcher,  J 228 

Fitzpatrick,  Miss  H 232 

Gifford,  J.J 326 

Grillo,S 176 

Greenvvalt,  J 271 

Grant,  General  U.S.. 336 

Garrett,  J.  W 302 

Gooding,  D.  S 489 

Hobart,  C 169 

Heaton,  F.  M 500 

Hall,  Frederick  H .o27 

Jackson,  Susan  Ann 162 

Kent,  W.  T. 123 

Kaldenbach,  A 517 

Kooutz,  George  S 524 


Page. 

Lee,  John • 195 

Lloyd,  J.  M 276,289 

Lincoln,  Thomas    .  : 525 

Morgan,  R.  C 340 

Maddox,  J.  L 259 

McDonongh,  H.  R 356 

Martin,  M.  E 213 

McClermont,  Mrs.  E.  W 365 

May,  Dr.  J.  T    270 

Murray,  Mrs.  M 246 

McMillan,  Lewis  J.  A 461,  493 

Norton,  William 510 

Olin,  JudgeA.B 420 

Petit,  J.  W 351 

Pettit,  J.  B 127 

Piles,  J.  V 265 

Pumphrey,  J.  W 225 

Robinson,  George  T 260 

Rathbone,  Colonel  H.  R 124 

Reed,D.C 150 

Rainey,  S.  A 203 

Ramsell,  Charles 498 

Rhodes.  T  B   501 

Stewart,  Colonel  J.  B 1 25 

Sawles,  A 366 

Sangster,  J 166 

Sprague,  L.  S 323 

Smoot,  E.  L    190,218 

Sawles,  E.  A 362 

Stabler,  Brooke 216,  220 

Smith,  Colonel  H.  W 321 

Seward.  Hon.  F.  W 249 

Seward,  Mrs.  F.  W    252 

Seward,  Colonel  A.  H 254 

St.  Marie,  H.B 492 

Toffey,  J.J 231 

Tibbelt,J.T 17S 


II 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Taltavul,P 157 

Townsend,  General  E.  D 287 

Thompson,  W.  S 510-517 

Thompson,  J.  C 515 

Vanderpool,  B.  W 240 


Pape. 

Wright,  J.  M 122,  192 

Weichman,  L.  J 369-437 

Wheeler,  William  E 314 

Wermerskirch,  W.  M 485 

Walker,  James 489 

Wood,  Charles  H.  M 494 


DefendanV s  witnesses. 


Bradley,  opening  address 530 

Boss,  William 593 

Bates,  D.H 594 

Brown,  S.K 611 

Baldwin,  William  0 619 

Garland,  L  J 570 

Glayton,  T.G 597 

Calvert,  Frederick 605 

Cook,  John  C 645 

Clarvoe,  John  A.  W 688,  696 

Cass,  John 724 

Dixon,  William 583 

Eastman,  A.  R 576 

Foy,  James 653 

Ford,  John  T 545,  550 

Ford,  H.  C 553 

Ford,  J.  R 579,593 

Fitzpatrick,  Honora 713 

Gifford,  J.  J 557 

Geary,  Thomas 640 

Hess,  C.  B 565 

Henze,  Bernard 631 

Henze,  Martin . .    632 

Horner,  W.  H 644 

Hollahan,  John 650,  669 

Hollahan,  Eliza 688 

Hawkins,  Eliza 692 

Kiesecker,  A.  C 585 

Kimball,  Charles 600 


Lamb,  James 58S 

Lloyd,  Joshua 598 

Lambert,  T.  J 659  669 

Lambert,  Mrs.  F.  R 661 

Lee,  Edwin  G 680 

Munson,  V.  B 621 

Middleton,  Henry 648 

McDevitt,  James  A .   707 

Nay  lor,  Benjamin  J 627 

Nackmann,  George 635 

Owen,  S.  W 545 

Orme,  L.  J 623 

Orme,  George  E 628 

O'Beirne,  James  R 610 

Pumphrey,  James  W 644 

Pumphrey,  Jackson 658 

Raybold,T.  J 612 

Rainey ,  John 647 

Skippon.  Charles 593,  712 

Stewart,  Charles  B 723 

Voss,  A 6.';8 

Williams,  T.  W 655 

Ward,  Francis  A 620 

Wise,  John  H 621 

Watson,  William  J 625 

Williams,  Margaret 606 

Wyvill,  E.  H 712 


TEIAL. 


June  10,  1S67. 

The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock.  Present :  the  district  attorney,  E.  C. 
Carrington,  esq.,  his  assistant,  N.  Wilson,  esq.,  and  associate  counsel,  Messrs. 
Edwards  Pierrepout  and  A.  G.  Riddle,  for  the  United  States,  and  the  prisoner 
and  his  counsel,  Messrs.  Joseph  H.  Bradley,  R.  T.  Merrick,  and  Joseph  H. 
Bradley,  junior. 

The  Court  said  :  Gentlemen,  this  is  the  day  assigned  for  the  tiial  of  John 
H.  Surratt,  indicted  for  the  murder  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  late  President  of  the 
United  States.     Are  you  ready  to  proceed? 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  prisoner  is  ready,  sir,  and  has  been  from  the  first. 

The  Court.  Are  you  ready,  Mr.  Carrington  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  I  am  happy  to  bo  able  to 
announce  that  the  government  is  ready  to  proceed  with  the  trial.  Before  we 
proceed,  however,  sir,  to  empanel  a  jury,  we  desire  to  submit  a  motion  to  the 
court,  which  motion  we  have  reduced  to  writing.  With  the  permission  of  the 
court  1  will  now  proceed  to  i-ead  it  to  your  honor.     It  is  as  follows : 

In  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  United  States  vs.  John 
H.  Surrait.     Indictment,  murder. 

And  now,  at  this  day,  to  wit,  on  the  10th  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1S67,  come  the 
United  States  and  the  said  John  H,  Surratt,  by  their  respective  attorneys  ;  and 
the  jurors  of  the  jury  empanelled  and  summoned  also  come  ;  and  hereupon  the 
said  United  States,  by  their  attorney,  challenge  the  array  of  the  said  panel, 
because  he  saith  that  the  said  jurors  comprising  said  panel  were  not  drawn 
according  to  law,  and  that  the  names  from  which  said  jurors  were  drawn  were  not 
selected  according  to  law;  wherefore  he  prays  judgment,  and  that  the  said  panel 
may  be  quashed. 

The  District  Attorney.  This  motion,  if  your  honor  please,  is  sustained  by 
an  affidavit  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  which,  with  the  permission  of  your 
honor,  1  will  now  proceed  to  read.  We  think  that  it  will  be  found  unneces- 
sary, after  this  affidavit  has  been  read,  to  introduce  any  oral  testimony. 

The  affidavit  was  then  read  as  follows : 

District  of  Columbia,  County  of  Washington,  to  ivit: 

Be  it  remembered  that  on  this  seventh  day  of  June,  A.  D.  18G7,  before  the 
subscriber,  a  justice  of  the  peace  in  and  for  the  county  aforesaid,  in  the  District 
aforesaid,  personally  appeared  Samuel  Douglass,  who,  being  first  duly  sworn, 
deposes  and  says,  that  in  the  months  of  January  and  February,  A.  D.  1867,  he 
was  register  of  Washington  city,  in  the  District  aforesaid  ;  that  about  the  first 
of  February  in  said  year,  this  affiant  deposited  in  tlie  box  required  to  be  kept 
in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  supi-eme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  four 
hundred  names,  (each  name  being  written  on  a  separate  piece  of  paper,  and  each 
paper  being  carefully  rolled  and  tied,)  as  a  part  of  the  names  from  which  jurors 
were  to  be  selected  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  16,  1S62  ; 
that  at  the  same  time  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  deposited  forty  names,  and  the 
clerk  of  Georgetown  deposited  eighty  names  in  said  jury  box ;  that  the  names 
deposited  by  this  official  were  selected  by  him  partly  from  the  poll  lists  of 
Washington  city  and  partly  from  the  names  of  citizens  who  he  thought  well 
qualified  to  serve  as  jurymen  ;  that  the  names  of  the  persons  so  selected  by  this 
affiant  as  register  were  not  communicated  by  him  to  the  clerk  of  Georgetown  or 


.4  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

the  clerk  of  the  levy  court,  nor  did  they  at  any  time  know  the  names  selected 
by  this  affiant,  nor  did  this  affiant  know  at  any  time  the  names  of  those  selected 
by  the  said  clerk  of  Greorgetown,  nor  by  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court ;  that  the 
names  having  been  deposited  as  aforesaid,  the  box  was  returned  to  the  clerk  of 
the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  by  said  clerk  sealed,  as  this 
affiant  believes,  in  the  presence  of  this  affiant ;  that  the  petit  jurors  for  the  March 
term  of  the  criminal  court,  1867,  were  selected  or  drawn  from  the  names  depos- 
ited in  said  box  on  said  first  day  of  February,  and  were  drawn  by  the  clerk  of 
Georgetown,  as  this  affiant  recollects  and  believes ;  that  the  names  were  deposi- 
ted in  the  manner  hereinbefore  stated  and  in  no  other  way,  and  that,  if  it  appears 
that  any  of  the  names  for  Washington  city,  deposited  as  aforesaid,  and  in  the 
handwriting  of  any  person,  whether  this  affiant  or  his  clerk,  then  the  same  were 
deposited  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of  this  affiant ;  and  further,  this 
affiant  says  that  the  paper  or  papers  containiog  the  names  of  those  whose  names 
were  written  on  said  four  hundred  pieces  of  paper  and  deposited  as  aforesaid,  he 
cannot  now  find,  although  he  has  made  diligent  search  for  the  same. 

SAMUEL  E.  DOUGLASS. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  seventh  day  of  June,  1867. 

CHAS.  WALTER,  /.  P. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Carrington,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  read  that  part  of 
the  affidavit  which  speaks  of  the  handwriting  of  the  affiant  ] 

Mr.  Carrington  then  read  as  follows  : 

"  That  the  names  were  deposited  in  the  manner  as  hereinbefore  stated,  and  in 
no  other  way,  and  if  it  appears  that  any  of  the  names  for  Washington  city,  de- 
posited as  aforesaid,  are  in  the  handwriting  of  any  person  other  than  this  affiant 
or  his  clerk,  then  the  same  were  deposited  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of 
this  affiant." 

The  Court.  Are  there  any  of  those  names  which  are  not  in  the  handwriting 
of  Mr,  Douglass  1 

The  District  Attorney.  Perhaps  it  is  better  that  I  should  proceed  at  once 
to  state  to  your  honor  the  points  upon  which  we  rely,  and  which  we  think  will 
satisfy  the  court  that  the  law  has  not  been  complied  with 

Mr.  Pierrkpont.  In  any  respect. 

The  District  Attorney.  And  that  a  verdict  rendered  by  this  jury  would 
be  entirely  illegal.  Feeling  that  it  would  be  idle  to  proceed  to  trial  with  the 
present  panel,  we  have  considered  it  our  duty  to  present  this  point  to  the  court, 
and  with  your  honor's  permission,  will  lay  before  you  the  law  bearing  on  the  sub- 
ject. 

I  will  read  first,  sir,  those  sections  of  the  act  of  June  16,  1862,  (12  Statutes 
at  Large,  p.  428,)  which  Ave  regard  as  necessary  to  elucidate  the  propositions 
which  we  propose  to  submit,  and  will  then  state,  more  clearly  than  I  have  done, 
the  objections  which  we  make.  The  act  is  entitled  "An  act  providing  for  the 
selection  of  jurors  to  serve  in  the  several  courts  of  the  District  of  Columbia." 

Mr.  Carrington  then  read  as  follows  : 

Be  it  enacted  hij  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  register  of 
Washington  city,  and  of  the  respective  clerks  of  the  city  of  Georgetown  and  the 
levy  court  of  Washington  county,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  within  one  month 
after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  February  in  each 
year  thereafter,  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white  male  citizens,  tax-payers, 
residing  within  their  respective  jurisdictions,  as  they  shall  judge  best  qualified  to 
serve  as  jurors  in  the  courts  of  the  said  District,  in  which  lists  may  be  included, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  officer  making  the  same,  the  names  of  such'  qualified 
persons  as  were  on  the  list  of  the  previous  year,  but  did  not  serve  as  jurors,  and 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRA.TT.  5 

the  lists  thus  made  by  the  register  aud  clerks  aforesaid  sliall  be  kept  by  tlicm, 
respectively,  and  be  delivered  over  to  their  successors  in  office. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  officers  aforesaid  shall  select  from 
the  list  of  the  register  of  Washington  city,  the  names  of  four  hundred  persons  ; 
from  that  of  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  eighty  persons,  and  from  that  of  the  clerk 
of  the  levy  court,  forty  persons,  which  proportion,  after  the  year  eighteen  hundred 
and  sixty-three,  may  be  varied  from  year  to  year  according  to  the  increase  or 
decrease  of  population  in  the  respective  jurisdictions,  by  oider  of  the  judges  of 
the  circuit  court  of  Washington  county. 

Sec.  3.  And  he  it  further  enacted.  That  the  mayors  of  the  cities  of  Washing- 
ton aud  Qeorgetown,  all  judicial  officers,  salaried  officers  of  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  commissioners  of  police,  and  those  connected  with  the  police 
or  fire  department,  counsellors  aud  attorneys  at  law,  ministers  of  the  gospel  and 
priests  of  every  denomination,  practicing  physicians  and  surgeons,  keepers  of 
hospitals,  asylums,  almshouses,  or  other  charitable  institutions  created  by  or 
under  the  laws  relating  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  captains  and  masters  and 
other  persons  employed  on  vessels  navigating  the  waters  of  said  District,  and 
keepers  of  public  fen-ies,  shall  be  exempt  from  jury  duty,  and  their  names  shall 
not  be  placed  on  the  list  aforesaid. 

Sec.  4.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  names  selected  from  said  lists 
shall  be  written  on  separate  and  similar  pieces  of  paper,  which  shall  be  so  folded 
or  rolled  up  that  the  names  cannot  be  seen,  and  placed  in  a  box,  to  be  provided 
by  the  register  and  clerks  aforesaid ;  which  box  shall  be  sealed,  and  after  being 
thoroughly  shaken,  shall  be  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  of  Wash- 
ington county  for  safe  keeping. 

Sec.  .5.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  register  and  clerks,  and  the 
clerk  of  the  circuit  court,  shall,  at  least  ten  days  before  the  commencement  of 
each  term  of  the  circuit  court,  or  of  the  criminal  court,  meet  at  the  City  Hall  in 
Washington  city,  and  then  and  there  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  shall  publicly 
break  the  seal  of  said  box,  and  proceed  to  draw  therefrom  the  names  of  so  many 
persons  as  are  required  ;  and  if  the  jury  abnut  to  be  drawn  is  intended  for  service 
in  the  criminal  court,  the  twenty-three  persons  whose  names  shall  be  first  drawn 
shall  constitute  the  grand  jury ;  and  the  twenty-six  persons  whose  names  shall 
next  be  drawn  shall  constitute  the  petit  jury  for  that  term  ;  but  in  a  capital  case 
where  the  said  panel  shall  have  been  exhausted  by  reason  of  challenge  or  other- 
wise, the  court  before  whom  such  capital  case  is  pending  may,  in  its  discretion, 
order  additional  names  to  be  drawn ;  and  if  all  of  the  names  in  the  box  shall 
have  been  drawn  out  and  no  jury  found,  the  court  may  order  the  marshal  to 
summon  talesmen  until  a  jury  shall  be  found.  And  if  a  jury  be  required  for  the 
circuit  court,  the  twenty-six  persons  whose  names  shall  first  be  drawn  shall  con- 
stitute the  jury  for  that  term,  and  the  names  of  the  persons  drawn  as  aforesaid 
shall  not  be  again  placed  in  such  box  for  the  period  of  two  years.  If  any  per- 
son whose  name  is  so  drawn  shall  have  died  or  removed  from  the  District,  or 
has  become  otherwise  disabled  from  serving  as  a  juror,  the  said  register  and 
clerks  shall  draw  from  the  box  another  name,  who  shall  serve  instead  ;  and  after 
the  requisite  number  of  jurors  shall  have  been  so  drawn,  the  said  box  shall  be 
again  sealed  and  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  as  aforesaid. 

Sec.  6.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  marshal 
of  the  District  of  Columbia,  at  least  five  days  before  the  meeting  of  the  court 
for  which  a  jury  ia  required,  to  notify  each  person  drawn,  by  serving  on  him  a 
notice  in  writing  of  his  selection  as  a  juror  of  the  court  he  is  to  attend,  and  of  the 
day  and  hour  he  is  to  appear ;  which  notice  shall  be  given  to  each  juror  in  per- 
son, or  be  left  at  his  usual  place  of  residence,  a  copy  of-  which  notice,  with  his 
certificate  stating  when  and  in  what  manner  the  original  was  served,  shall  be 
returned  by  the  said  marshal  to  the  court  before  the  commencement  of  the 
emi  for  which  the  said  jurors  were  drawn. 


6  TRML   OP   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Sec.  7.  And  be  itfurlher  enacted.  That  in  case  either  of  the  officers  whose 
duty  it  is  to  make  out  the  lists  aforesaid,  shall  neglect  or  refuse  to  act,  or  in  case 
either  of  them  shall  be  interested  in  any  action  or  proceeding  pending  in  the 
said  circuit  or  criminal  court,  the  chief  judge  of  the  circuit  court  shall  appoint  a 
fit  and  proper  person  to  discharge  the  duty  instead  ;  and  if  the  persons  selected 
as  jurors  do  not  attend,  the  court  may  order  the  marshal  to  summon  other  re- 
spectable tax-payers,  possessing  the  other  legal  qualifications,  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiency. And  if  at  any  time  there  should  not  be,  by  reason  of  challenge  or 
otherwise,  a  sufficient  number  of  jurors  to  make  up  the  panel,  the  court  shall 
order  the  marshal  to  summon  as  many  talesmen  as  are  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose. I 

Sec.  11.  And  be  it  further  enacted.  That  the  names  on  the  lists  specified 
in  the  second  section  of  this  act  shall  be  selected,  as  near  as  may  be,  from 
among  the  citizens  of  the  several  wards  of  the  cities  of  Washington  and  G-eorge- 
town,  and  the  three  divisions  of  the  county  of  Washington  outside  the  limits  of 
said  cities  formed  by  the  Eastern  Branch  of  the  Potomac  river  and  Rock  creek, 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  taxable  inhabitants  residing  in  said  wards  and 
districts,  respectively. 

Now,  if  your  honor  please,  we  submit  the  following  propositions: 
First.  That  the  jurors  constituting  this  panel  were  not  selected  in  the  manner 
required  by  the  act  of  Congress,  to  which  your  honor's  attention  has  been  called. 
Second.  That  the  jurors  were  not  drawn  in  the  manner  required  by  this  act 
of  Congress. 

Third.  That  the  officers  have  failed  to  preserve  and  perpetuate,  as  required 
by  this  act,  the  list  which  they  are  required  by  the  act  to  prepare,  reduce  to 
writing,  and  safely  keep,  to  hand  over  to  their  successors  in  office;  and. 

Fourth.  That  the  box  has  not  been  sealed,  as  required  by  the  act  of  Congress, 
to  which  your  attention  has  been  called. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Is  that  in  the  affidavit,  that  the  box  was  not  sealed.? 
Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  Bradley.  It  had  escaped  my  attention. 

The  District  Attorney.  Now,  if  your  honor  please,  in  regard  to  the  first 
proposition,  you  will  find  that  the  law  requires  that  the  jurors  who  are  to  serve, 
either  in  the  circuit  or  criminal  court,  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  shall  be 
selected  by  the  three  officers,  constituting  a  board  for  this  purpose.  Congress 
evidently  did  not  intend  to  leave  the  selection  of  jurors  to  any  one  officer,  or  any 
one  person,  but  in  so  many  words,  it  charges  the  duty  of  selecting  the  jurors  upon 
the  three  officers  named — the  register  of  the  ciiy  of  Washington,  the  clerk  of 
Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  of  the  county  of  Washington. 

Your  honor  understands  the  mode  in  which  it  is  done.  The  register  of  the 
city  of  Washington  makes  out  a  list  of  four  hundred  persons,  whom  he,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  discretion,  shall  think  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors.  The 
clerk  of  Georgetown  makes  out  a  list  of  eighty;  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court 
makes  out  a  list  of  forty;  and  from  these  three  lists,  thus  prepared  by  these 
officers,  by  their  joint  action,  the  jurors  are  selected.  Then,  if  your  honor  please, 
that  being  the  case,  let  us  see  if  this  requirement  of  the  law  has  been  complied 
with. 

Your  honor  will  observe  from  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Douglass,  (and  surely,  sir, 
there  is  no  more  faithful  and  intelligent  officer  than  he  is,  but  he  may  have  mis- 
apprehended this  law,)  that  he  selected  four  hundred  names,  wrote  them  down 
upon  separate  pieces  of  paper,  and  deposited  them  in  the  box  without  communi- 
cating with  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court,  or  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  with  whom 
the  law  requires  him  to  co-operate  in  making  the  selection  of  jurors.  In  other 
words,  according  to  the  affidavit  which  has  been  read  here,  he  selected  the 
names  of  four  hundred  persons  to  serve  as  jurors,  in  which  selection  neither  the 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  7 

clerk  of  the  levy  court,  nor  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  harl  any  voice.  It  is 
the  act,  then,  of  one  man,  whereas  the  law  recjuires,  if  your  honor  please,  and 
very  properly,  as  we  conceive,  that  it  should  be  the  act  of  three  men.  You  will 
see,  sir,  from  the  language  of  the  act,  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  national 
legislature  that  it  should  be  the  joint  action  of  the  three  officers  charged  with  the 
important  duty  of  selecting  persons,  who  should  represent  the  community,  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  as  jurors.  They  were  uuwilliug  to  intrust  this  import- 
ant duty  exclusively  to  the  discretion  of  a  single  officer.  Not  only  has  this  dis- 
cretion been,  in  violation  of  law,  exercised  by  one,  but,  sir,  according  to  tliis 
affidavit,  it  further  appears  that  a  similar  mistake  was  committed  by  the  other  tAvo 
officers.  Mr.  Laird,  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  selects  eighty  persons ;  Mr. 
Callau,  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court,  selects  forty;  and  thus  the  case  is  pres- 
ented to  your  honor  of  four  hundred  jurors  selected  by  one  man,  eighty  jurors 
selected  by  another  man,  and  forty  jurors  selected  by  a  third  man,  when  the  law 
distinctly  requires  that  it  should  be  the  joint  action  of  all. 

Then,  if  your  honor  please,  if  this  affidavit  is  worthy  of  your  confidence,  this 
is  a  fatal  objection  to  the  present  panel. 

But,  again,  sir,  the  section  to  which  I  called  your  attention  specifies  distinctly 
the  mode  in  which  these  jurors  shall  be  drawn.  Congress  has  thought  proper 
that  jurors  who  shall  be  charged  with  the  highest  and  most  solemn  duty  of  an 
American  citizen,  who  are  intrusted  with  the  lives  and  liberties  of  their  fellow- 
citizens,  should  be  selected  by  one  board,  and  drawn  by  another  officer.  But 
how  is  it  in  this  case?  One  of  the  men  who  selected  a  portion  of  the  jurors, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Douglass,  assumes  to  discharge  the  duty  which 
is  devolved  by  law  upon  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court.  He  selects,  and  then 
draws.  The  law  says  the  three  officers,  to  whom  your  attention  has  been  called, 
shall  select,  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  shall  draw.  It  is  unnecessary 
that  I  should  detain  your  honor  further  upon-  this  poiat,  for  it  is  clear  and  con- 
clusive. 

Again,  sir,  in  the  discharge  of  this  important  duty,  Congress  has  very  wisely 
provided  for  all  the  details.  It  may  appear  to  your  honor  at  the  first  glance  to  be 
unimportant,  but  upon  a  moment's  reflection  you  vfiW  see  that  it  is  not  so.  Con- 
gress having  pi-escribed  how  these  jurors  shall  be  selected  ;  how  these  names 
shall  be  deposited,  it  also  designates  the  officer  by  whom  the  jurors  are  to  be 
drawn,  and  when  and  where  such  drawing  is  to  take  place.  We  submit,  there- 
fore, that  this  important  requii-ement  of  the  law  has  not  been  complied  with  by 
the  officers  charged  with  the  performance  of  the  duty.  These  three  points  we 
think  are  fatal  objections  to  proceeding  with  the  present  panel. 

Again,  if  your  honor  pleases,  Congress  has  thought  it  proper  that  the  founda- 
tion of  the»action  of  these  officers  should  be  preserved  and  perpetuated,  and 
very  wisely.  The  officers  charged  with  this  important  duty,  and  invested,  as 
your  honor  will  observe  here  by  the  language  of  the  act,  with  a  discretion, 
shall  preserve  and  perpetuate  the  testimony,  or  rather  the  lists  of  the  names 
from  which  they  naade  their  selection  ;  and  why  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPoNT.  No  list  was  ever  made. 

The  District  Attorney.  Exactly,  I  am  coming  to  that.  The  law 
requires,  not  only  that  they  should  make  a  list,  but  that  they  should  preserve 
and  perpetuate  it,  handing  such  list  over  to  their  successors,  when  they  sliall 
retii'e  from  office.  If  through  misapprehension,  or  mistake,  or  for  any  other 
reason,  these  officers  fiiil  to  properly  di.-^eliarge  this  important  duty,  the  court 
having  a  supervisory  power  over  their  action  may  correct  it,  if  it  be  capable 
of  correction,  but  if  they  fail  to  reduce  these  names  to  writing — if  tliey  fail  to 
perpetuate  them,  and  therefore  cannot  now,  when  called  upon,  submit  them  to 
the  inspection  of  your  honor,  how  can  this  court,  charged  by  the  law  of  the  land 
with  a  supervisory  power  over  the  discretion  intrusted  to  those  officers,  discliarge 
its  duty  ?     These  lists,  according  to  the  afiidavit,  were  never  made — at  least  tiiere 


8  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

is  no  certainty  of  their  having  been  made.     They  cannot  be  produced  at  all 
events. 

This  failure  of  duty,  then,  on  the  part  of  these  officers,  is  fatal,  because  the 
testimony,  or  rather  the  first  preliminary  step  required  by  the  act  of  Congress 
to  be  taken,  has  not  been  taken  ;  and  second,  because  your  honor  cannot  be  ad- 
vised from  these  lists,  of  the  selections  Avhich  were  really  made.  Therefore,  if 
in  point  of  fact,  there  has  been  either  through  fraud  or  partiality,  which  we  do 
not  charge  in  this  case,  or  misapprehension  of  the  law,  sucli  dereliction  of  duty 
as  we  have  stated,  it  will  be  impossible  for  your  honor  to  discharge  that  super- 
visory duty,  which  is  clearly  incumbent  upon  every  court  in  the  administration 
of  justice. 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  that  I  should  detain  your  honor  further. 
We  think  these  objections  are  fatal.  It  may  be  proper  for  me  to  state  in  this 
connection  that  the  object  of  this  motion  is  not  delay.  We  are  ready  and  anx- 
ious for  a  trial,  and  may  I  be  pardoned  for  saying  here  that  never  at  any  stage 
of  this  case,  have  I  been  disposed  to  delay  it  any  longer  than  we  thought  neces- 
sary for  the  promotion  of  the  cause  of  justice  and  of  truth.  I  repeat  we  are 
ready  now,  but  we  want  a  jury  summoned  according  to  law,  so  that  no  objection 
can  be  made  hereafter,  either  by  the  government  or  the  accused,  whatever  may  be 
the  event  of  this  mo.=t  important  and  solemn  trial.  To  show  your  honor  that  there 
need  be  no  delay,  I  Avill  call  your  attention  to  the  5th  section  of  the  act,  which 
gives  the  court  plenary  powers  to  proceed  at  once,  if  there  has  been  such  in- 
formality in  the  selection  of  the  jurors  by  the  officers  charged  with  that  duty ; 
or  if  from  any  other  cause  it  is  found  impossible  to  proceed  with  the  panel  so  se- 
lected, the  court  may  order  the  marshal  to  summon  talesmen  at  once.  I  will 
read. 

Mr.  Carrington  then  read  the  5th  section  as  follows: 

Sec.  5.  And  he  if  further  enacted,  That  the  said  register  and  clerks,  and  the 
clerk  of  the  circuit  court,  shall,  at  least  ten  days  before  the  commencement  of 
each  term  of  the  circuit  or  of  the  criminal  court,  meet  at  the  City  Hall,  in 
Washington  city,  and  then  and  there  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  shall  publicly 
break  the  seal  of  said  box  and  proceed  to  draw  therefrom  the  names  of  so  many 
persons  as  are  required ;  and  if  the  jury  about  to  be  drawn  is  intended  for 
ger%-ice  in  the  criminal  court,  the  twenty-three  persons  whose  names  shall  be 
first  drawn  shall  constitute  the  grand  jury  ;  and  the  twenty-six  persons  whose 
names  shall  next  be  drawn  shall  constitute  the  petit  jury  for  that  term ;  but  in 
a  capital  case  where  the  said  panel  shall  have  been  exhausted  by  reason  of  chal- 
lenge or  otherwise,  the  court  before  whom  such  capital  case  is  pending  may,  in 
its  discretion,  order  additional  names  to  be  drawn ;  and  if  all  of  the  names  in 
the  box  shall  have  been  drawn  out  and  no  jury  found,  the  court  miy.order  the 
marshal  to  summon  talesmen  until  a  jury  shall  be  found.  And  if  a  jury  be 
required  for  the  circuit  court,  the  twenty-six  persons  whose  names  shall  first  be 
drawn  shall  constitute  the  jury  for  that  term,  and  the  names  of  the  persons 
drawn  as  aforesaid  shall  not  be  again  placed  in  such  box  for  the  period  of  two 
years.  If  any  person  whose  name  is  so  drawn  shall  have  died  or  removed  from 
the  District,  or  has  become  otherwise  disabled  from  serving  as  a  juror,  the  said 
register  and  clerks  shall  draw  from  the  box  another  name,  who  shall  serve 
instead  ;  and  after  the  requisite  number  of  jurors  shall  have  been  so  drawn  the 
said  box  shall  be  again  sealed  and  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  as 
aforesaid. 

That  is  what  we  now  ask  your  honor  to  do.     I  have  authorities  showing  that 
the  whole  matter 

The  Court.  That  relates  to  the  entire  panel  ? 

Mr.  PiRRREPONT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  Before  we  proceed  at  all  to  the  discussion  of  the  questions 
raised  upon  this  motion  and  affidavit,  I  beg  leave  to  submit  to  the  court  that,  as 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN"   H.    SURRATT.  9 

Mr.  Douglass  is  at  quite  a  convenipnt  distance  from  hero,  he  be  sent  for  and 
examined  by  the  court,  in  order  that  we  may  see  what  the  facts  really  are.  I 
am  not  apprised,  up  to  this  moment,  that  they  have  departed  from  the  mode  of 
pr'^paring  and  drawing  juries  observed  from  the  year  1802  up  to  this  time.  I 
take  it  for  granted  that  they  have  pursued  the  same  course  all  the  way  through. 
I  would  be  very  glad  to  have  the  opportunity  of  cross-examining  the  witness. 
I  see  the  affidavit  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Wilson,  the  assistant  district 
attorney,  and  I  should  like  to  have  Mr.  Douglass  brought  in  and  examined  as 
to  particulars.  I  think  it  is  best  to  first  ascertain  the  facts  before  we  attempt 
to  apply  the  law  to  this  particular  case. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  We  do  not  see  how  there  can  be  any  objection  to  that,  if 
your  honor  sees  fit.     I  think  it  is  a  very  proper  request. 

The  Court.  Do  I  understand  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  to  agree  to  au 
oral  examination  1 

Mr.  PiBRREPONT.  I  know  nothing  as  to  what  the  custom  here  is,  your  honor. 
Whatever  is  right  and  fair  in  the  matter,  of  course,  we  want  done.  If  such 
is  the  custom,  Ave  assent  to  it ;  if  such  is  not  the  custom,  we  do  not.  Where  I 
am  in  the  habit  of  practicing  it  is  the  custom  to  bring  on  the  affidavit  before  the 
court  where  a  motion  is  made. 

The  Court.  I  cannot  speak  as  regards  the  custom  here,  except  for  the  four- 
years  past.     In  that  time  there  has  been  no  custom  at  all,  for  the  simple  rea-son 
that  uo  case  of  this  sort  has  eA'er  been  presented  to  the  court.     I  understand 
from  Mr.  j\Iiddleton,  who  has  been  deputy  clerk  of  the  court  for  a  nttmber  of 
years,  that  no  case  has  ever  occurred  under  his  observation.     I  presume,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  to  be  viewed  in  the  same  light  as  a  motion  to  change  the  venue. 
In  that  case  the  motion  is  granted  upon  affidavit ;  oral  explanations  are  not  cus- 
tomary.    I  have  never  myself,  in  my  practice  anywhere,  seen  ai  case  of  lite  sort. 
It  is  right,  in  a  case  of  this  character,  that  everything  which  torras  the  basis  of  a 
decision  by  the  court  should  appear  upon  the  record.     For  that  nsason,  I  pre- 
sume, the  law  requires  that  motions  of  this  kind  should  be-  grounded '  upon 
written  testimony. 

Mr.  Bradlrv.  I  will  simply  state,  in  reply  to  the  suggestions^  thrown  out  by 
your  honor,  that  the  reporter  is  here  to  taiie  down  the  affidavit  of  the  party. 
The  examination  and  cross-examination  so  taken  down,  being  written  out  in 
regular  order  among  the  other  proceedings,  will  thus  appear  as  an  affidavit 
on  -record,  duly  signed  by  the  party,  if  deemed  necessary.  1  am  not  aware  of 
any  case  in  my  experience  of  this  kind.  We  raised  the  question  once,  many 
years  ago,  but  it  was  disposed  of  without  any  examination  into  the  fiicts. 
That  was  a  challenge  of  the  array  by  the  prisoner,  so  far  as  ray  memory 
serves  me,  and  the  case  went  on.  We  desire,  however,  to  have  spread  upon 
the  record  all  the  facts  of  this  case,  what  construction  this  law  has  received, 
and  how  it  has  been  interpreted  and  carried  out  since  its  passage  to  this  day. 
I  think  we  can  prove  very  clearly  that  in  this  instance  these  officers  have  fol- 
lowed the  uuilorm  practice  since  the  passage  of  the  act,  in  June,  1862.  How 
far  that  may  tend  towards  the  proper  construction  of  the  law  is  another  ques- 
tion, to  be  considered  when  we  come  to  ascertain  what  the  facts  are.  What  we 
■propose  is,  to  have  put  upon  the  record  a  history  of  the  action  under  this  law. 

Mr.  PlERRKPoxT.  I  suppose,  sir,  if  your  honor  please  if  that  is  the  case — 
and  perhaps  it  is  proper,  as  the  learned  counsel  suggests,  that  it  should  be 
placed  upon  the  record  for  future  guidance — that  it  is  necessary  it  should  be 
by  affidavit,  to  be  regularly  filed.  Tlie  district  attorney  and  myself,  upon  con- 
sultation think,  accepting  the  theory  of  the  learned  cnunsel,  that  the  facts,  with 
the  decision,  should  be  preserved  as  a  part  of  the  record  ;  that  it  should  be  by 
affidavit,  and  we  feel  impelled,  therefore,  to  ask  the  court  that  such  a  course  be 
pursued. 


10  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Bradley,  And  in  that  view  I  desire  that  the  affidavit  may  be  made  in 
open  court,  in  the  presence  of  the  counsel  and  the  prisoner,  taken  down  by  the 
reporter,  and  afterwards  read  over  to  the  witness  and  signed  by  him.  That 
can  be  done  very  rapidly,  and  I  hope,  as  it  is  a  matter  entirely  within  the  dis- 
cretion of  your  honor,  that  such  a  course  will  be  pursued. 

The  District  Attorney.  Will  your  honor  please  defer  your  ruling  for  a 
moment  until  I  have  an  opportunity  to  consult  with  my  associate  ? 

After  a  brief  conference,  Mr.  Pierrepont  said  :  If  your  honor  please,  with  the 
understanding  that  it  be,  as  counsel  suggests,  taken  down  here  in  the  presence 
of  the  court  and  counsel,  and  made  to  become  a  formal  affidavit,  to  be  placed  on 
the  files  of  the  court,  we  consent. 

Mr.  Samuel  E.  Douglass  was  then  sworn  by  the  clerk,  when  the  affidavit, 
which  had  been  read  to  the  court,  was  handed  to  the  witness,  with  the  request 
that  he  would  read  it,  and  state  if  it  was  correct  in  all  particulars. 

Witness  did  as  requested,  and  then  stated  that  it  was  correct. 

He  was  then  examined  as  follows : 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Mr.  Douglass,  how  long  have  you  been  a  register  of  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington ? 

A.  Since  the  1st  of  July,  1861.       « 

Q.  You  were  then  register  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act  of  1862,  pro- 
viding for  the  selection  and  drawing  of  jurors  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether,  in  the  drawing  of  this  last  panel  of  jurors,  you  pursued  any 
new  practice,  or  whether  you  observed  the  old  one? 

A.  Tlie  old  practice.  The  same,  of  course,  that  I  had  always  pursued  in 
selecting  jurors,  viz.,  placing  their  names  on  slips  of  paper,  and  then  putting 
those  slips  in  the  box. 

Q.  From  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  from  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether,  shortly  after  the  passage  of  that  act,  the  register 
of  the  city,  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  did  or 
did  not  take  the  advice  of  the  judge  of  the  old  circuit  court  as  to  the  mode  of 
discharging  their  duty  ? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Please  wait  one  moment.  I  do  not  think  the  question  is 
a  proper  one.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  matter,  but  design  simply  to  make 
the  objection,  and  allow  the  court  to  decide  upon  it,  without  argument. 

The  Court.  I  cannot  see  that  it  has  any  relev^ancy  to  the  matter. 

Mr.  BfiADLBV^  It  maybe  relevant  to  this  extent,  your  honor,  that  if  the  court 
then  having  jurisdiction,  immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  gave  construc- 
tion to  it,  and  these  officers  acted  in  pursuance  of  that  construction,  and  have 
since  that  time  followed  the  same,  and  have  done  in  this,  as  in  other  instances, 
as  the  court  advised  them  to  do,  it  might  have  some  effect,  perhaps. 

Mr.  :PiERRKpoNT.  The  records  of  the  court  must  determine  its  decisions,  and 
not  the  actions  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  all  very  true.  The  records  of  the  court  must  show 
in  the  cases  between  parties;  but  not  with  regard  to  a  matter  outside  of  the  court, 
of  the  records  of  the  court,  and  not  in  a  judicial  proceeding. 

The  Court.  I  suppose,  Mr.  Bradley,  you  are  directing  your  inquiry  to  some 
extra-judicial  opinion  v/hich  was  given  by  one  or  more  of  the  judges  of  the  old 
circuit  court. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  it,  sir.  All  three  of  them  were  sitting  in  court.  There 
was  no  case  before  them,  however,  and  therefore,  of  course,  the  opinion  was 
extra-judicial  to  that  extent. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Of  course  that  would  have  no  binding  effect. 


TRIAL    OP   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  11 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  claim  that  it  would  have  any  binding  effect.  I 
simply  want  to  get  at  the  opinion  upon  which  those  gentlemen  acted,  and  which 
was  given  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act.  I  would  state  further,  sir,  that, 
even  had  this  opinion  been  announced  from  the  bench,  it,  of  course,  would  not 

control  your  honor's  decision  on  the  same  question ;  but 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  It  could  not  be  evidence  then  in  any  shape. 
The  Court.  I  do  not  see  that  it  has  any  bearing. 
Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  not  press  it,  then,  your  honor. 
The  examination  of  the  witness  was  then  resumed  by  Mr.  Bradley : 
Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Douglass,  that  in  drawing  the  jurors  for  the 
present  term  of  the  court,  you  made  out  your  list  of  four  hundred  tax-payers  of 
the  city  of  Washington? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  know  that  they  were  all  tax-payers. 
Q.  Were  you  not  limiting  the  list  to  tax-payers  1 
A.  Not  that  I  was  aware  of. 

The  District  Attorney.  The  act  says  that  should  be  done. 
Witness.  I  did  not  look,  into  the  books  iu  the  collector's  office  to  ascertain 
whether  they  were  all  tax-payers  or  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  putting  any  one  on  the  list  Avho  was  not  a 
tax-payer  ? 
A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  From  that  list  of  persons,  thus  made  out,  you  afterwai-ds  wrote  on  little 
slips  of  paper  to  the  number  of  four  hundred,  each  name,  rolled  them  up,  and,, 
without  consultation  with  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  or  the  clerk   of  the   levy 
court,  deposited  them  in  the  box  1 

A.  We  each  deposited  our  quota  in  the  box — Mr.  Callan,  Mr.  Laird,  and  my- 
self. . 
Q.  But  neither  of  them  saw  your  list? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  theirs  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  Mr.  Laird  brought  in  a  list  of  eighty,  and  Mr, 
Callan  forty? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  that  is  what  the  law  requires. 
Q.  They  were  already  rolled  up? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  each  of  you  deposited  the  number  required  by  law  ;  you   400,  the 
other  SO,  and  the  other  40  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  At  the  same  time  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  presence  of  each  other  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  has  been  your  mode  of  executing  that  law   since  the  time   of  its 
passage  ] 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Mr.  Douglass,  you  didn't  see  the  names  of  those  that  the  clerk  of  George- 
town deposited  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  they  were  rolled  up,  and  a  piece  of  string  tied  round  them. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  the  names  of  those  that  the  other  clerk  deposited  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  they  did  not  see  the  names  you  deposited  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  those  that  they  deposited  the  names  of  tax-payers  ? 


12  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  do  not.  know. 

Q.  Were  those  that  you  deposited  the  names  of  tax-payers  1 

A.  I  am  not  certain.  There  may  have  been  some  that  were  not  tax-payers. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  desire  to  interpose  an  objection  here.  The  counsel  asks 
Mr.  Douglass  whether  he  saw  the  list  that  was  presented  by  the  officer  of  the 
corporation  of  Georgetown,  and  whether  that  officer  saw  the  list  that  was  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  Douglass.  It  is  to  that  inquiry  that  I  desire  to  make  an  objec- 
tion ;  and  suggest  to  yovir  honor  its  inadmissibility  upon  this  ground  :  Mr- 
Douglass  testified  that  these  three  officers  were  present,  and  together  engaged 
in  discharging  the  duty  which  the  counsel  upon  the  other  side  maintain  devolved 
upon  the  three  jointly. 

I  understand  their  position  to  be  this  :  That  the  act  vested  a  sort  of  judicial 
or  discretionary  power  in  the  three,  which  one  could  not  exercise  without  the 
co-operation  of  the  other  two  ;  and  that  as  the  power  was  exercised  by  one 
without  the  co-operation  of  the  other  two,  it  was  improperly  exercised,  and 
therefore  vitiates  the  act  done. 

Now,  the  register  of  the  city  of  Washington  testifies  upon  the  stand  that 
when  this  duty  was  discharged,  it  was  discharged  by  the  three ;  that  the  three 
were  together,  and  together  deposited  certain  names  in  the  box,  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  law,  they  were  to  be  deposited,  and  from  which  they  were  to  be 
drawn.  Now,  I  submit  to  your  honor,  that  it  is  not  competent  for  the  counsel 
to  go  behind,  and  ascertain  from  one  of  the  parties  how  far  they  exercised  judg- 
ment or  discretion.  They  were  present,  acting  together ;  and  the  act  being 
done  in  the  presence  of  all,  is,  according  to  law,  as  a  presumption  of  law,  the 
act  of  all  under  the  statute ;  and  it  is  not  competent  for  the  counsel  to  go  be- 
hind the  doing  of  the  act  thus  done  conjointly  by  the  three  combined,  and 
ascertain  what  part  of  the  judgment  of  each  entered  into  the  execution  of  the 
act.  It  is  enough  that  they  were  present  at  the  doing  of  the  act,  and  that  the 
act  was  done. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  My  learned  friend  seems  to  be  arguing  anew  the  general 
proposition.  If  he  confines  his  argtiment  to  the  question  that  I  put  to  the  wit- 
ness, that  is  one  thing.  I  do  not  intend  at  this  stage,  until  the  evidence  is  be- 
fore your  honor,  to  argue  the  general  proposition ;  and  do  not  propose  to 
answer  him  upon  that  question.  I  have  not  finished  the  re- examination  of  the 
witness,  but  Avas  interrupted,  as  I  understood,  by  the  learned  counsel  objecting 
to  the  line  of  examination  being  pursued.  My  question  was  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  jurors  names  were  put  in  the  box,  and  which  he  has  answered.  Now, 
I  tuiderstand,  he  substantially  moves  to  strike  out 

Mr.  Merrick.  If  the  counsel  will  allow  me  a  single  moment.  I  did  not  in- 
terpose the  objection  at  an  earlier  moment  for  the  reason  that  my  associate  was 
engaged,  and  I  had  not  the  opportunity  of  consulting  with  him. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  not  objecting  on  the  ground  that  the  gentleman's 
motion  comes  too  late. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  am  objecting  to  the  testimony,  and  not  arguing  the  general 
propo.«ition. 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT.  My  learned  friend,  run  somewhat,  I  thought,  perhaps  in- 
advertently, into  the  general  proposition. 

The  question  as  to  the  mode  of  selecting  these  jurors  is  surely  a  proper 
question.  I  do  not  think  it  admits  of  debate,  and  1  do  not  think  your  honor  will 
require  it  to  be  debated. 

The  Court.  I  can  see  no  impropriety  in  the  question  which  you  put.  The 
question  which  is  addressed  to  the  court  is  as  to  whether  these  parties  upon 
whom  the  law  devolved  this  duty  of  selecting  the  520  names  that  are  to  go  into 
the  general  jury  box  acted  together,  or  acted  in  their  individual  and  separate 
capacity.     The  question  is  one  which  you  are  seeking  to  inquire  into,  and  one 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  13 

which  the  court  is  to  pass  upon  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  the  jury  has  been 
duly  selected  or  not,  and  any  questions  which  are  directed  to  that  point  must 
be  considered  as  relevant  and  admissible. 

Mr.  PiERUEPONT.  I  will  then  proceed  with  one  or  two  other  questions  : 

Q.  You  have  just  read  over  your  affidavit  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  to  the  court  as  to  its  being  true  ? 

A.  It  is  true. 

Re-examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  It  is  said  in  that  affidavit  that  you  have  searched  for  the  list  made  out  by 
you.  State  to  the  court  whether,  in  point  of  fact,  you  did  make  out  a  list  and 
put  it  away  for  preservation. 

A.  I  think  I  did.  I  divided  the  wards  up  on  sheets  of  foolscap  paper,  divid- 
ing the  city  as  near  as  I  possibly  could  with  regard  to  the  number  of  men.  I 
then  took  the  names  and  put  them  on  separate  slips  of  paper  and  rolled  them  up. 

Q.  You  are  distinct  you  did  make  out  such  a  list,  and  have  searched  for  it, 
but  cannot  find  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  am.     I  might  be  able  to  find  it  in  the  course  of  time. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  say  "  paper  or  papers,"  in  this  affidavit ;  you  made  memoranda,  did 
you? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  what  they  were,  on  separate  pieces  of  paper,  the  first  ward 
on  one  paper,  and  the  second  ward  on  the  other,  and  so  on. 

Q.  These  separate  pieces  of  paper,  then,  you  did  not  show  to  these  other  gen- 
tlemen ? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  names  were  all  rolled  up. 

Q.  It  has  not  been  your  habit  to  preserve  these  papers  ? 

A.  We  have  laid  them  aside  in  the  office,  some  of  them ;  we  have  generally 
done  so. 

Q.  Some  of  them,  you  say  ? 

A.  All  of  them  ;  we  have  generally  made  them  out,  and  laid  them  aside. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  you  have  done  with  this  last  list? 

A.  We  laid  it  aside  somewhere  among  a  lot  of  old  papers. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  beg  leave  to  suggest  that  this  motion  has  taken  us  entii*ely 
by  surprise.  We  relied  upon  the  uniform  practice  in  the  execution  of  this  law 
fi'om  the  time  of  its  passage,  and  therefore  have  had  no  reason  or  disposition  to 
look  into  the  mode  in  which  the  jury  has  been  selected  in  this  particular  case — 
more  especially  as  more  than  one  person  has  been  on  trial  for  his  life  during  this 
term  of  the  court,  and  before  this  very  jury.  I  do  not  know  as  there  were  any 
convictions  in  capital  cases,  but  there  were  certainly  capital  trials. 

The  District  Attorney.  Only  one — Cleaver. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  district  attorney  says  only  one ;  one  is  enough  at  any 
rate.  I  repeat  that  this  motion  takes  us  entirely  by  surprise.  We  came  pre- 
pared to  try  the  case.  And  with  regard  to  the  motion  before  us,  a  grave  question 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  it :  Avhether  or  not,  if  your  honor  should  be  of  opinion  with 
the  counsel  on  the  other  side  that  the  jurors  have  not  been  properly  summoned, 
we  can  go  to  trial  unless  the  objection  comes  from  the  defendant,  he  having 
a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts  ;  and  whether  a  verdict  against  him,  under  such 
circumstances,  would  not  be  just  as  conclusive  as  if  the  jury  had  been  regularly 
enipannelled,  I  am  well  aware  that  the  current  of  decisions  is  the  other  way, 
and  that  where  life  is  concerned  there  can  be  no  waver  on  the  part  of  the  accused. 
There  are,  however,  decisions,  and  very  well-reasoned  ones,  supporting  the  right 
of  the  court  to  proceed  to  try,  convict,  and  execute,  where  the  prisoner,  knowing 
all  the  facts,  makes  no  objection.     It  is  with  this  view  that  I  ask  your  honor  to 


.14  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

indulge  us  for  time  to  look  into  these  two  questions  :  First,  the  construction  of 
the  law ;  and,  second,  as  to  the  effect  which  may  be  produced  in  the  event  of 
your  ruling  the  question  of  law  against  us,  and  in  favor  of  the  United  States  ; 
that  is,  whether  it  is  a  thing  possible  for  the  accused  to  submit  his  case  to  the 
jury  empaunelled,  and  which  has  served  during  this  term. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  your  honor  please,  any  indulgence  that  the  counsel  shall 
ask,  that  your  honor  thinks  reasonable,  we  are,  of  course,  disposed  not  to  inter- 
fere with  in  the  least.  I  have  no  doubt  this  motion  has  taken  them  by  surprise, 
and  I  see  by  the  remarks  which  the  counsel  (Mr.  Bradley)  has  already  made, 
that  he  is  quite  familiar  with  the  law  on  this  subject,  and  I  think,  therefore,  is 
entirely  apprised  of  the  fact  that  if  this  jury  has  been  illegally  empanelled,  that 
if  he  should  stipulate,  if  all  his  associates  should  stipulate,  and  the  prisoner 
should  stipulate  to  abide  by  the  verdict,  the  verdict  would,  notwithstanding,  be 
utterly  worthless.  You  cannot,  for  grave  reasons  of  public  policy,  permit  any  ille- 
gal conviction  for  the  taking  of  the  life  of  one  of  our  citizens  to  stand  a  moment 
if  the  verdict  has  not  been  rendered  strictly  in  accordance  with  law,  and  no  stipu- 
lation of  counsel  or  prisoner  can  relieve  it.  I  believe  if  anything  is  settled  lately, 
that  is  well  settled.  My  learned  friend  suggests  that  he  has  seen  some  cases  in 
which  there  were  some  decisions  looking  the  other  way  ;  I  do  not  know  what  he 
alludes  to. 

Mr.  Bkadlev.  I  beg  my  learned  friend  to  understand  that  I  do  not  know  the 
fact  that  such  a  conviction  is  void  in  law ;  if  I  did,  I  certainly  would  not  stand 
up  here  and  controvert  it.  What  the  legal  conclusion  may  be,  is  the  very  thing 
I  ask  time  to  look  into. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Certainly;  I  did  not  say  tliat  the  learned  counsel  "knows"  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  did  say  so. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  From  the  remarks  that  the  learned  gentleman  did  make,  I 
inferred  that  he  knew  it.  In  my  view  of  it — and  I  certainly  am  in  some  mea- 
sure responsible  for  the  advice  1  may  give  here  to  the  government — I  should 
not  hesitate  in  saying  publicly  as  well  as  privately,  that  a  verdict  of  a  jury 
thus  illegally  empannelled  would  be  altogether  worthless,  and  that  no  man  could 
be  executed  upon  it,  or  sixffer  any  punishment. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  would  like  to  know  what  is  to  be  done  with  all  those  who 
have  been  already  executed. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  in  no  way  responsible  for  what  has  been  done. 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  my  friend  (Mr.  Bradley) 
needn't  trouble  himself  about  that. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  only  say  that  it  has  been  the  uniform  practice  since  the 
passage  of  the  act,  and  you  have  hung  a  dozen  men  under  it. 

The  District  Attorney.  Oh,  no,  not  quite  so  many  as  that.  And  I  will 
only  say  that  it  is  never  too  late  to  do  good.  I  don't  want  to  hang  any  more 
in  that  way. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  your  honor  please,  the  construction  of  this  law  is  a  very 
nice  question,  and  although  our  friends  on  the  other  side  are  entirely  confident 
about  it,  I  will  simply  say  that  what  has  fallen  from  them  thus  far,  has  not 
satisfied  our  minds,  and  we  therefore  ask  until  to-morrow  morning  to  look  into 
that  question.  It,  sir,  presents  a  very  grave  question,  whether  or  not  for  the 
last  five  years,  every  man  who  has  been  hung  has  been  hung  illegally. 

The  District  Attorney.  It  is  proper  for  me  to  state  that  we  are  willing  to 
grant  any  indulgence  which  the  counsel  may  ask,  and  which  the  court  thinks 
proper. 

The  Court.  "\Ye  will  give  you,  then,  Mr.  Bradley,  until  to-morrow  morning 
at  10  o'clock. 

Thereupon  the  court  adjourned. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.   SURRATT.  15 

June  11,  1867. 

The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Mr.  Bradley.  When  the  motion  was  submitted  yesterday,  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution,  to  quash  the  arra^'  of  the  panel  in  this  case,  we  were  taken  by 
surprise,  as  we  well  might  have  been,  under  the  circumstances.  As  far  as  I  can 
ascertain  no  such  motion  was  ever  made  in  this  court.  The  particular  form  of 
the  motion  did  not  attract  my  attention  at  the  time,  but  upon  looking  at  it  since, 
I  find  that  it  is  not  only  novel,  but  that  there  is  no  precedent  for  it  either  in 
English  or  American  practice.  In  order  to  present  to  the  court  a  case  on  which 
the  court  can  decide  whether  the  jury  has  been  properly  summoned,  returned,  or 
impanelled,  the  motion  must  state  tacts  and  not  conclusions  of  law.  I  will 
read  it  to  your  honor,  and  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  our  brethren  on  the 
other  side,  to  a  fatal  defect  in  the  form  of  the  motion,  in  order  that  they  may  so 
remedy  it  as  to  place  the  question  in  a  form  in  which  it  may  be  reviewed  here- 
after, if  it  should  become  necessary.     The  motion  is  in  these  words  : 

In  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  United  States  vs. 
John  H.  Siu-ratt.     Indictment,  murder. 

"And  now,  at  this  day,  to  wit,  on  the  10th  day  of  June,  1867,  came  the  United 
States  and  the  said  John  H.  Surratt,  by  their  respective  attorneys,  and  the 
jurors  of  the  jury  empanelled  and  summoned  also  come,  and  thereupon  the  said 
United  States,  by  their  attorneys,  challenged  the  array  of  the  said  panel,  be- 
cause he  saith  that  the  said  jurors  composing  said  panel  were  not  drawn  accord 
ing  to  law,  and  that  the  names  from  which  said  jurors  were  drawn  were  not 
drawn  according  to  law  ;  whereupon  he  prays  for  judgment,  and  that  said  panel 
may  be  quashed." 

Now,  if  the  court  please,  the  facts?  upon  which  these  propositions  rest,  must 
be  stated  in  the  motion.  They  are  traversable,  and  upon  them  an  issue  may 
be  made.  When  the  facts  are  presented,  the  opposite  party  may  either  take 
issue  or  demur. 

I  rise,  therefore,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  the  attention  of  my  brethren  on 
the  other  side  to  the  form  of  their  proceeding,  and  to  suggest  to  them  that  it  be 
so  amended  as  to  set  out  the  facts  upon  which  they  rely  for  the  court  to  pass 
upon  the  facts  as  set  forth  in  the  motion  or  plea.  I  have  looked  into  the  English 
precedents  and  those  of  this  country,  and  I  think  I  state  the  law  with  precision, 
that  the  facts  upon  which  they  rely,  showing  the  grounds  upon  which  they 
appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  coui-t  to  set  aside  the  panel,  must  be  stated  upon 
record.  And  that  is  not  supplied  by  the  affidavit,  for  we  could  neither  take 
issue  upon  the  affidavit  which  they  have  presented,  nor  could  we  demur;  and 
it  is  the  right  of 'the  opposite  party  to  demur  or  take  issue,  as  they  see  fit.  1 
refer  your  honor  to  I  Archibold'a  Criminal  Practice,  p.  545,  hn  this  point.  On 
p.  547,  is  this  note. 

"  The  challenge  to  the  array  must  be  in  writing.     It  maybe  in    this  form: 

'  And  now,  on  this  day,  to  wit :  on ,  come  as  well  the  aforesaid  J.  S.  as  the 

aforesaid  J.  N.,  by  their  respective  attorneys,  and  the  jurors  of  tlie  jury  inipan- 
nelled, being  summoned,  also  come;  and  thereupon,  the  said  J.  N.  challengetli  the 
array  of  the  said  panel,  because,  he  saith,  [here  set  forth  the  matter  of  challenge 
with  certainty  and  precision,]  and  this  he  is  ready  to  verify.  Wherefore,  he 
prayeth  judgment,  and  that  the  said  panel  may  be  quashed.'  " 

Then  follows  a  long  note,  in  which  this  whole  case  is  presented,  showing  that 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  make  an  issue  upon  which  tlu-  coint  may 
determine  whether  the  proceedings  have  been  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  law 
or  not,  that  the  facts  shall  be  set  forth  in  the  motion. 

Mr,  PlERREPONT.  The  learned  district  attorney  is  not  now  in  court,  but  will 
be  here  presently.  I  quite  agree  with  my  learned  friend  that  the  facts  must  be 
brought  before  the  court  upon  which  they  are  to  determine  the  qu<;stion.  It  is 
upon  the  facts  and  conclusions  of  law  that  the  question  is  to  be  determined. 
The  only  point  now  is  as  to  the  mode  by  which  the  facts  shall  be  brought  before 


16  TRIAL   OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

your  honor.  There  is  no  doubt  but  iu  an  ordinary  suit  at  law,  where  the  object 
is  to  get  it  in  such  shape  that  a  demurrer  will  lie,  the  practice  is  to  set  out,  as  my 
friend  has  suggested,  the  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  demurrer.  Whether 
the  practice  in  this  court  is  such  that  your  honor  will  require  the  evidence  to  be 
set  out  in  the  motion,  or  brought  before  you  by  affidavit,  as  has  been  done  in 
this  case,  I  have  no  knowledge,  nor  do  I  deem  it  of  importance  except  to  con- 
form to  the  practice  which  is  usual  in  such  cases.  I  do  not  very  well  see  how 
it  can  make  any  possible  difference  whether  the  affidavit  is  attached  to  the  motion 
or  be  not  pinned  to  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  My  suggestion  was  that  the  substance  of  the  affidavit  should 
be  incorporated  in  the  motion.  I  say  that  the  facts  relied  upon  must  be  incor- 
porated into  the  motion  to  enable  us  to  take  issue. 

Mr.  PiERREPOM\  It  is  certainly  the  same  thing;  it  makes  no  difference  how 
you  put  the  affidavit  in,  whether  you  write  it  over  again  or  attach  this  paper  to 
the  motion.  It  is  the  substance,  not  the  form,  to  which  we  are  dii*ecting  the  at- 
tention of  the  court  ;  and  there  is  tfo  difficulty  in  getting  at  what  your  honor  may 
think  is  the  proper  form.  I  quite  agree  that  the  substance  is  the  fact,  and  the 
fact  is  to  be  ascertained  in  such  mode  as  your  honor  may  think  is  the  correct 
mode.  As  I  have  said,  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  practice  of  this  court.  The 
assistant  district  attorney  is  present,  and  may  perhaps  suggest  what  it  is  in  this 
respect.  I  simply  wish  that  whatever  is  the  proper  and  usual  mode  of  getting 
at  the  fact  shall  be  followed. 

Mr.  WiLSi'N.  Your  honor  will  observe  that  the  form  given  in  the  authority 
quoted  by  Mr.  Bradley  has  been  followed  in  this  case.  The  requirement  there 
is  that  the  matter  of  challenge  should  be  set  forth  with  certainty  and  precision. 
That  is  the  requirement,  and  if  there  is  any  other  requirement  more  specific  than 
that,  I  have  been  unable  to  find  it.  If  this  motion  does  set  forth  the  matter  of 
challenge  with  certainty  and  precision,  it  complies  with  the  requirements  laid 
down  in  the  text-books.  It  is,  however,  a  question  for  your  honor  to  pass  upon, 
and  if,  upon  inspection  of  this  motion,  your  honor  is  of  opinion  it  does  not  specify 
with  certainty  the  cause  of  challenge,  we  will,  of  course,  in  accordance  with  the 
suggestion  of  your  honor,  amend  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  my  brethren  will  show  me  how  we  can  plead  or  take  issue 
upon  the  motion  in  its  present  form,  they  will  relieve  me  of  the  difficulty  under 
which  I  am  laboring.  If  they  will  show  me  how  we  can  plead  to  an  affidavit 
annexed  to  a  motion,  I  shall  be  equally  pleased  ;  but  until  they  show  me  some 
form  of  plea  by  which  we  can  put  in  issue  the  fact  upon  which  the  law  is  to 
rest,  I  must  say  that  under  the  practice  of  any  court  that  I  ever  heard  of  this  is 
a  novel  proceeding  to  me.  To  aver  that  a  thing  is  contrary  to  law  and  fail  to 
state  the  facts  upon  which  the  motion,  or  application,  or  plea,  or  whatever  it 
may  be  called,  is  based,  is,  I  confess,  a  novel  proceeding  to  me. 

Mr.  PiERREPoxT,  I  do  not  understand  the  motion  to  be  a  plea  in  any  sense 
in  which  that  term  is  used.  I  understand  the  motion  to  be  addressed  to  the  dis- 
cretion and  judgment  of  the  court,  and  when  the  facts  on  the  motion  are  brought 
before  the  court  on  the  one  side,  they  may  be  denied  on  the  other.  If  one  side 
uses  an  afKdavit  as  a  means  of  enlightening  your  honor  as  to  the  facts  upon 
which  they  base  the  motion,  the  other  side  may  use  an  affidavit  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  facts  relied  upon  are  not  true ;  or  they  may,  if  the  court  so 
direct,  bring  witnesses  for  that  purpose.  I  do  not  understand  that  in  the  motion 
before  the  court  the  forms  of  pleading  are  to  be  complied  with  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  in  an  action  at  law.     I  am  not  aware  that  such  is  the  practice. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  wish  to  ask  my  learned  friend  whether,  in  such  a  proceeding 
as  this,  the  opposite  party  is  entitled  to  an  issue  on  the  question  presented? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr  Bradley.  Then  I  ask  how  can  they  have  an  issue  upon  a  motion  of  this 
sort  which  was  that  a  proceeding  is  not  in  accordance  with  law,  without  setting 
out  the  facts  upon  which  the  motion  is  based  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  17 

Mr.  PiERRRPO.\T.  Precisely  as  in  all  other  cases.  The  motion  is  made,  and 
the  affidavit  npon  which  it  is  based  is  read.  The  other  side  presents  an  issue 
by  presenting  other  affidavits  or  other  evidence,  and  then  the  law  arises  upon 
the  facts  as  presented. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  mean  in  an  issue  to  be  tried  by  triers. 

Mr.  PiBRREPONT.  I  mean  an  issue  to  be  tried  by  the  court. 

The  Court.  It  would  seem  from  this  note  of  Mr.  Woodeson's  that  there  is 
quite  as  much  formality  to  be  observed  in  motions  of  this  sort  as  in  the  pleadings 
in  any  cause.  I  read  from  the  note  referred  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  in  first  Archibold, 
"  As  Sir  James  Burrow  has  not  given  the  record  at  length,  1  have  set  down  the 
form  of  these  challenges  (which  is  not  of  every  day's  experience)  from  my  man- 
uscript precedents,  and  thereupon  the  said  S.  B.  prayeth  judgment  of  the  panel 
aforesaid,  because  he  says  that  the  said  panel  was  arrayed  and  made  by  J.  C. 
and  J.  D.,  sheriffs  of  the  said  city  of  Chester,  and  that  the  said  J.  C.  and  J.  D. 
were  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  panel  aforesaid,  and  continually,  from 
thenceforth,  hitherto  have  been,  and  still  are  citizens  and  freemen  of  the  said 
city  of  Chester  ;  and  this  the  said  S.  B.  is  ready  to  verify ;  wherefore  he  prays 
judgment,  and  that  the  panel  aforesaid  may  be  quashed.  And  the  said  P.  E. 
and  H.  H.  say  that  the  matter  in  the  aforesaid  challenge  to  the  array  of  the 
said  panel  contained,  is  not  sufficient  in  law  to  quash  the  array  of  the  said 
panel  ;  and  this  they  are  ready  to  verify  ;  wherefore  they  pray  judgment,  and 
that  the  array  of  the  panel  may  be  allowed  by  the  court  here.  And  the  said 
S.  saith,  for  that  he  hath  above  alleged  a  sufficient  challenge  to  quash  the 
array  of  the  panel  aforesaid,  which  he  is  ready  to  verify,  which  said  challenge 
the  said  P.  and  H.  do  not,  nor  doth  either  of  them,  deny,  nor  to  the  same  in 
any  wise  answer,  but  do,  and  each  of  them  doth,  altogether  refuse  to  admit  that 
averment ;  he  and  the  said  S.  prays  judgment,  and  that  the  array  of  that  panel 
may  be  quashed." 

It  would  look  to  me,  if  we  are  to  be  guided  by  these  precedents,  as  if  the 
facts  and  not  the  law  should  be  set  out  in  this  motion,  and  the  conclusions 
of  law  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  fixcts  as  set  forth. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Now,  if  your  lionor  please,  as  we  are  exceedingly  anxious 
on  both  sides  to  bring  this  case  to  a  hearing  as  soon  as  possible,  I  submit  to  the 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  that  they  incorporate  substantially  the  facts  set 
forth  in  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Douglass  in  their  motion,  and  then  we  will  be 
ready  to  proceed. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.     We  are  quite  ready  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  have  been  informed  by  Mr.  Douglass  that  he  desires  to 
amend  a  single  statement  in  his  affidavit.  1  do  not  know  that  it  is  in  any  im- 
portant particular,  but  I  suggest  that  he  have  permission  to  make  his  statement 
to  the  court  now. 

The  Court.     He  may  do  so. 

Mr.  S.  E.  Douglass  then  came  into  court  and  made  the  following  statement: 

I  wish  merely  to  say  that  when  I  spoke  of  drawing  the  jurors  from  the  box, 
it  was  always  done  in  presence  of  Mr.  Meigs,  the  clerk  of  the  court. 

The  Court.  You  state  in  your  affidavit  which  was  filed  yesterday  morning 
and  made  the  ground  for  challenging  the  array,  among  other  things,  that  this 
jury  now  in  court  Avas  drawn  by  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  without  stating  that  it 
was  drawn  in  presence  of  anybody  ;  and  jon  now  wish  to  interpolate  there  that  it 
was  done  by  him  in  the  presence  of  the  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  of  this  district. 

Witness.  Yes,  sir,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  of 
the  county  and  of  myself  as  register  of  this  city. 

Mr.  Bradley.     I  will  also  state  that  I  have  looked  at  the  original  record  and 
that  the  head  of  the  certificate  is  in  the  handwriting   of  lleturn  J.  Meigs,  and 
that  the  names  of  the  jurors  are  in  the  handwriting  of  Mr.  Williams,  a  clerk 
2 


18  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

in  his  office,  and  that  it  is  signed  by  Mr.  Douglass  as  register,  and  by  the  clerk 
of  Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court.  I  suggest,  if  there  be  no  ob- 
jection, that  the  correction  now  made  by  Mr.  Douglass  be  entered  in  the  affidavit. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.     We  have  no  objection. 

The  Court.     It  will  be  so  entered. 

Mr.  Bradley,  The  motion  now  having  assumed  a  shape  in  which  we  can 
plead,  we  are  ready  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Bradley  thereupon  entered  the  following  plea  : 

TTmted  States,  ^ 

vs.  >  In  the  criminal  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  No. — 

John  H.  Surratt.  j 

And  thereupon  the  defendant  saith  the  said  motion  is  bad  in  law  and  in  sub- 
stance. The  facts  stated  do  not  constitute  any  ground  in  law  for  a  challenge 
of  the  array. 

BRADLEY  &  MERRICK, 

For  Defendant. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.     We  join  in  the  demurrer. 

Mr.  Merrick.  When  the  motion  was  made  on  yesterday,  the  high  respect 
that  I  entertained  for  the  learned  counsel  upon  the  other  side  induced  me  to  ap- 
prehend that  it  involved  a  question  of  some  difficulty,  especially  in  view  of  the 
assurance,  which  I  was  exceedingly  glad  to  hear  given  by  the  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney,  that  the  motion  was  not  for  the  purpose  of  delay,  but  upon  an  exam- 
ination of  the  question  my  apprehension  of  any  difficulty  involved  in  it  as  a 
legal  proposition  was  speedily  removed,  and  I  beg  to  suggest  to  my  learned 
brothers  upon  the  other  side,  and  your  honor,  that  if  there  is  anything  in  the 
motion,  and  it  should  prevail  as  a  valid  objection  to  a  petit  jury,  the  same  ob- 
jection will  apply  to  the  grand  jury  that  found  the  indictment,  and  on  the  deci- 
sion of  your  honor,  should  it  be  to  sustain  the  ground  of  challenge  to  the  petit 
jury,  we  may  deem  it  expedient  to  change  the  plea  of  not  guilty  and  to  plead 
specially  to  the  indictment.     It  is  therefore,  in  point  of  substance,  as  to  the  re- 
sult not  so  very  material  to  the  prisoner,  for  the  success  of  the  motion  of  my 
learned    i'riends  on  the   other    side   may  put   him  at  large.     It  is    somewhat 
remarkable  that  the  objection  now  presented  to  the  regularity  of  the  manner  in 
which  this  jury  was  drawn  should  be  presented  for  the  first  time  at  this  late  day. 
Since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1862,  as  Mr.  Douglass  tells  us,  the  jurors  have 
been  uniformly  drawn,  and  the  lists  iiniformly  prepared  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  the  list  of  this  jury  was  prepared,  and  in  the  same  manner  this  jury  was 
drawn ;  and  if  this  jury  is  illegally  constituted,  and  not  authorized  to  return  a 
verdict,  your  honor  has  been  dealing  somewhat  inconsiderately  with  the  lives 
and  liberties  of  the  citizens  of  this  country  ever  since  1863,  when  your  honor 
came  upon  the  bench.     You  have  hung  one  man  and  sentenced  scores  to  the 
penitentiary,  and  you  are  now  to  be  gratified  with  the  intelligence  that  in  all 
these  acts  in  the  taking  of  human  life  you  were  guilty  of  simply  killing,  and  in 
all  these  adjudications  inflicting  the  penalty  of  incarceration  you  have  pronounced 
upon  ofienders,  you  are  guilty  of  participation  in  the  act  of  folse  imprisonment. 
A  pleasing  reflection  to  your  honor,  and  a  matter  for  serious  consideration  for  the 
jurors  who  participated  with  you  in  these  crimes.     But  I  apprehend  there  is  no 
such  result  following  from  a  just  construction  of  this  statute,  and  I  shall  very 
briefly  submit  to  your  honor  the  views  that  have  suggested  themselves  to  me. 

The  first  question  that  avises  is  upon  the  construction  of  the  statute.  My 
learned  brothers  upon  the  other  side  contend  that  the  selection  of  the  names  that 
are  to  be  deposited  in  the  jury  box  is  a  duty  devolving  by  the  law  upon  the 
register  of  Washington  city,  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  levy 
court  of  the  county,  and  that  this  duty  must  be  performed  by  all  three  conjointly, 
and  that  a  part  of  this  duty  having  been  performed  by  one  of  the  three,  the  duty 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  19 

•was  illegally  performed,  and  the  conclusion  of  that  duty  are  null  and  void. 
Your  honor  will  observe  that  the  first  section  of  the  act  provides :  "  That  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  register  of  Washington  city,  and  of  the  respective  clerks  of 
the  city  of  Georgetown  and  the  levy  court  of  Washington  county,  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  within  one  month  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  on  or  before  the 
first  day  of  February  in  each  year  thereafter,  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white 
male  citizens,  tax-payers,  residing  within  their  respective  jurisdictions  as  they 
shall  judge  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors  in  the  courts  of  said  District." 

This  requirement  of  the  law  is  addressed  to  these  officials  respectively.  The 
register  of  Washington  is  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white  male  citizens,  tax- 
payers, as  he  thinks  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors.  So  far  as  the  making  of  the 
list  itself  in  the  first  instance  is  concerned,  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  any  part 
of  the  duty  in  regard  to  it  has  devolved  upon  any  one  else  than  the  register  as 
to  the  list  of  Washington,  the  clerk  of  Georgetown  as  to  the  list  for  Georgetown, 
and  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  as  to  the  list  for  the  county,  and  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  that  list  there  is  a  discretionary  power  left  with  these  several  officers  to 
^  be  exercised  by  each  severally,  independent  of  the  other  within  the  territory 
over  which  the  law  requires  him  to  perform  his  duty.  The  register  of  Wash- 
ington has  to  select  from  the  white  male  citizens  of  Washington,  tax-payers,  such 
persons  as  he  may  think  in  his  judgment  best  qualified.  Your  honor  will  ob- 
serve that  the  law  does  not  say  that  he  shall  select  all  that  are  qualified.  It 
does  not  say  what  proportion  of  those  that  are  qualified  he  shall  select.  It  does 
not  say  how  many  shall  constitute  his  list,  but  it  provides  that  he  shall  make  a 
list  of  those  he  deems  best  qualified ;  and  in  the  execution  of  the  duty  imposed 
by  this  law  he  is  required  to  leave  out  some,  because  he  cannot  select  those  who 
are  best  qualified,  without  leaving  out  those  who  are  more  indifferently  quali- 
fied.    So  with  the  clerk  of  Georgetown — so  with  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court. 

In  this  first  section,  then,  there  is  no  pretence,  there  is  no  ground  to  maintain  that 
the  duty  imposed  upon  these  officers  is  to  be  performed  by  them  conjointly.  The 
second  section  provides  "that  the  officers  aforesaid  shall  select  from  the  list  of 
theregisterofWashingtonthenamesof  four  hundred  persons  ;  fi'onithatofthe  clerk 
of  Georgetown  eighty  persons,  and  from  that  of  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  forty 
persons,  which  proportion  after  the  year  1863  may  be  varied  from  year  to  year," 
&c.  My  learned  brethren,  while  they  will  concede,  and  must  concede  the  posi- 
tion advanced  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  first  section,  contend  that  the 
second  section,  however,  imposed  the  duty  of  selecting  from  the  list  prepared  in 
obedience  to  the  first  section  upon  the  three  officers  conjointly.  They  admit, 
and  must  admit,  that  each  officer  must  prepare  his  own  list,  but  they  say  that 
after  the  list  is  so  prepared  by  each  officer  severally,  the  three  are  to  meet 
together  and  conjointly  select  the  number  required,  from  the  list  so  prepared.  I 
submit  to  your  honor  that  the  same  construction  which  applies  to  the  first  section 
must  also  apply  to  the  second ;  that  the  clear  and  distinct  language  of  the  first, 
aids  in  relieving  the  apparent  obscurity  of  the  second,  and  the  several  duty 
designated  to  be  performed  by  these  officers  severally  in  the  first  section,  re- 
mains a  several  duty  to  be  performed  by  them  severally  under  the  second  section. 
Each  officer  has  to  select  from  the  list  he  prepares  the  number  of  names  he  is  re- 
quired to  have  drawn  from  each  list,  and  I  submit  to  your  honor,  that  the 
other  officers — the  clerks  of  Georgetown  and  of  the  levy  court — have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  selection  to  be  made  from  the  list  prepared  by  the  register  of 
Washington.  The  law  has  selected  three  officers  of  three  distinct  corporations  ; 
the  corporations  of  Washington,  Georgetown,  and  the  county  are  distinct. 
The  law  has  selected  these  three  officers,  and  these  three  distinct  corporations, 
to  perform  certain  duties  within  their  corporate  limits,  and  relating  to  the  cor- 
porators. It  has  imposed  the  duty  upon  these  officers  because  they  are  pre-, 
sumed  to  know  better  than  anybody  else  of  the  qualifications  and  character  of 
the  corporators  among  whom  they  live,  and  it  would  be  a  most  remarkable 


20  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

thing  if  the  law  should  require  an  officer  of  the  corporation  of  Washington  to 
enter  into  the  corporation  of  Georgetown  and  perform  a  duty  of  this  character 
in  regard  to  the  corporators  of  Georgetown.  It  would  he  a  remarkable  thing  if 
the  laAV  should  require  an  officer  of  the  corporation  of  Washington,  about 
whom  and  about  whose  official  position  there  is  nothing  to  justify  the  presumption 
that  he  is  acquainted  with  the  qualifications  and  character  of  the  citizens  of  the 
county,  to  go  into  the  county  and  make  from  among  its  citizens  a  selection  of  a 
portion  of  them  who  are  to  perform  the  high  and  responsible  duties  of  jurors  ; 
but  it  would  be  in  perfect  accordance  with  reason,  common  sense,  justice,  and 
law,  to  require  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  of  Washington  county,  who  lives  in 
the  county,  is  familiar  with  the  corporators  of  the  county,  to  select  from  among 
those  corporators,  the  persons  who  are  to  perform  this  delicate  office,  and  it  is  to 
be  presumed  from  the  relation  in  which  these  officers  stand,  that  one  can  in  no 
way  aid  or  assist  the  other.  The  reason  why  they  are  brought  together  is,  that 
in  the  particular  of  the  jury,  the  jury  is  to  constitue  the  jury  for  the  three  cor- 
porations, but  in  order  that  it  should  be  wisely  and  judiciously  selected,  it  is  to 
be  selected  by  the  men  best  competent  to  make  it,  most  likely  to  be  familiar  with 
the  people  among  whom  the  selection  is  required  to  be  made — by  the  officer  of 
that  particular  corporation. 

But,  your  honor,  it  is  not  necessary  that  in  this  case  I  should  take  this  ex- 
treme position  in  the  construction  of  the  law.  My  second  position  is,  that  the 
three  officers,  if  the  construction  of  my  learned  brethren  be  correct,  did  con- 
jointly perform  the  duty  of  selecting  from  these  lists.  On  yesterday,  when  it 
became  apparent  from  the  statement  of  Mr.  Douglass,  made  in  addition  to  his 
affidavit,  that  that  affidavit  was  not  entirely  accurate,  and*that  when  the  jnror 
names  were  deposited  in  the  jury  box,  all  three  of  these  officers  were  present, 
I  objected  to  the  further  inquiry  as  to  what  particular  judgment  was  exercised 
by  the  one  or  the  other  in  the  selection  of  the  names  so  deposited.  My  learned 
brethren  on  the  other  side  suggested  to  me  that  the  argument  or  view  I  then  ex- 
pressed was  applicable  to  the  main  question,  and  should  be  expressed  as  an 
argument  upon  the  main  question,  and  not  upon  the  question  of  evidence.  What- 
ever might  be  the  view  of  this  statute  when  that  fact  was  developed,  it  struck  me 
instantly  that  my  learned  brethren  on  the  other  side  would  see  at  once  there 
was  no  ground  upon  which  to  rest  their  motion.  1  supposed,  although  I  had 
never  examined  the  question  at  all,  that  when  Mr.  Douglass  stated  these  three 
officers  were  present  at  the  time,  my  learned  brethren  on  the  other  side  had  been 
misinformed  by  the  affidavit  which  they  had,  and  that  when  the  fact  was  de- 
veloped that  all  these  officers  were  present  acting  together  in  depositing  names 
in  the  jury  box,  it  was  information  that  would  satisfy  them  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  their  motion.  My  reason  for  so  supposing  was  this  familiar  principle, 
that  where  three  individuals  are  required  by  law  to  perform  a  qt/asi  judicial 
duty,  or  a  discretionary  duty,  and  the  duty  is  performed,  you  cannot  go  back 
beyond  the  performance  of  the  duty  to  inquire  how  far  it  was  performed  by  each 
of  the  three.  Your  inquiry  is  stopped  the  very  instant  the  fiict  is  developed 
that  the  three  were  present  and  participated  in  the  duty  imposed  upon  them. 
How  far  it  appears  of  what  share  he  had,  how  far  the  judgment  of  one  guided 
the  other,  and  what  passed  in  consultatiim,  are  not  matters  of  inquiry  by  your 
honor.  This  board,  if  board  you  call  it,  have  rights  as  well  as  courts.  They 
are  entitled  to  legal  presumption  as  well  as  the  court,  and  it  is  the  first  time  in 
my  professional  experience,  that  I  have  ever  seen  the  attempt  made  to  inquire 
how  far  one  of  the  several  parties  aided  in  the  perfonnance  of  the  duty  that  was 
imposed  upon  them  conjointly  when  it  was  shown  that  all  were  present.  The 
statement  of  the  question  is  so  plain  that  argument  would  only  tend  to  obscure. 
'  I  suggest  to  your  honor,  as  a  third  consideration,  that  we  are  not  now  inquiring 
whether  these  parties  (these  officers  of  the  law)  performed  their  duty  strictly  in 
accordance  with  requirements  of  the  law,  but  we  are  inquiring  how  far  failure 


TRIAL    OP    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  21 

to  comply  with  these  requirements  vitiates  what  was  done — two  very  distinct 
questions  ;  and  I  maintain  that  even  if  this  officer  failed  to  comply  in  every  par- 
ticular with  the  strict  requirements  of  the  law,  and  yet  the  duty  was  performed, 
that  while  they  may  be  liable  for  a  failure  to  (jbey  and  observe  the  law,  the  act 
they  have  done  is  a  valid  and  binding  act.  The  statute  nowhere  declares  that 
the  p.anel  shall  be  void.  The  statute  nowhere  declares  that  their  action  shall  be 
nugatory.  It  directs  certain  things  to  be  done,  and  is  Avhat  is  known  to  the 
law  as  a  directory  statute.  As  your  honor  is  aware,  the  courts  have  gone  to  a 
great  extent  in  construing  these  directory  requirements  of  the  law,  with  a  view 
to  uphold  what  may  have  been  done  under  the  law.  I  refer  the  court  to  Sedg- 
wick on  Statutory  Law,  from  page  37  i  to  page  377,  for  a  very  full  collection 
of  cases  bearing  upon  this  point.  1  cannot  gather  from  the  case  decided 
any  fixed  general  principle,  sufficiently  clear  and  distinct,  and  state  to  your 
honor  without  reference  to  special  cases,  other  than  this,  that  whenever  the  court 
can  construe  the  law  as  directory,  whenever  they  can  uphold  the  validity  of 
what  is  done  under  the  law,  although  not  done  in  conformity  to  the  law,  it  will 
construe  the  statute  to  be  directory.  And  it  has  upheld  the  validity  of  what 
has  been  done,  even  while  punishing  the  officer  for  a  failure  to  comply  with  the 
mandates  of  the  law.     I  read  from  page  377. 

"  By  a  paving  act,  commissioners  were  empowered  to  enter  into  contracts  for  the 
work,  provided  that  no  contract  should  be  made  for  any  longer  term  than  three 
years ;  and  the  act  then  went  on  to  declare  that  ten  days'  notice  of  proposals 
should  be  given ;  that  the  contracts  should  specify  the  work,  the  price,  and  the 
time  of  completion,  and  should  be  signed  by  at  least  three  of  the  commissioners, 
and  that  copies  should  be  kept.  It  was  held  that  the  proviso  as  to  the  term  of 
the  contract  was  imperative,  but  that  all  the  other  clauses  Avere  merely  direc- 
tory, (Tindal,  C.  J.,  saying:  "The  act  says  that  the  contract  shall  be  signed 
by  the  commissioners,  &c. ;  it  does  not  say  that  they  shall  be  void  unless  so 
signed,")  and  that  a  contract  was  good  without  them.  Here  it  is  obvious  that 
provisions  inserted  by  the  legislature  for  the  protection  of  tax-payers,  were  nul- 
lified by  a  judicial  decision. 

*  *  *  5|c  s|c  Jj; 

"  In  Massachusetts,  where  a  statute  required  the  assessors  to  assess  a  tax  within 
thirty  days  after  the  vote  of  the  tax  being  certified  to  them,  it  was  held  that  the 
naming  the  time  for  the  assessment  was  to  be  considered  as  directory  to  the  as 
sessors,  and  not  as  a  limitation  of  their  authority.  So  in  New  York,  where  a 
school-tax  was  voted  at  a  meeting  of  which  no  notice  was  given  as  required  by 
statute,  and  afterwards  levied,  the  act  was  held  to  be  directory  merely,  and  the 
tax  to  be  well  laid.  A  statute  requiring  a  tax  to  be  assessed,  and  the  tax-list 
therefore  to  be  made  out  by  the  trustees,  and  a  proper  warrant  attached  thereto 
within  thirty  days  after  the  district  meeting  in  Avhich  the  tax  shall  have  been 
voted,  is  merely  directory  as  to  time. 

*  *  *  *  5fC  # 

"  Indeed,  the  rule  has  been  carried  so  far  as  to  hold  where  a  statute  directed 
the  vote  of  the  common  council  of  the  city  of  New  York  to  be  taken  by  ayes 
and  nays,  that  the  provision  is  merely  directory.  And,  again,  it  has  been  de- 
cided that  the  provision  of  a  statute  requiring  inspectors  of  corporate  elections 
to  take  an  oath  is  only  directory.  The  rule  has  also  been  applied  to  popular 
elections ;  an  election  has  been  held  valid,  though  the  inspectors  were  sworn 
not  ou  the  Bible  but  on  some  other  book,  though  the}-^  kept  open  the  polls  after 
the  time  fixed  by  law,  and  committed  other  minor  irregularities." 

This,  then,  will  show  to  your  honor  the  disposition  of  the  courts  to  uphold  the 
validity  of  what  may  have  been  done  by  an  officer  even  where  he  has  not  strictly 
complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  law.  The  requirements  of  every  law  are 
mandatory  and  should  be  obeyed,  and  he  who  disregards  them  must  disregard 
them  at  his  peril.    But  where  the  law  itself  does  not  declare  that  to  be  void  which 


22  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

he  is  required  to  do,  and  lias  not  done,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  requirements 
of  the  statute,  and  the  doing  of  the  tiling  afifects  other  parties  and  the  puhlic 
interests.  The  law  will  uphold  the  act  as  valid,  but  may  punish  the  officer  as 
derelict  in  his  duty. 

The  general  principle  thnt  statutory  provisions  may,  in  certain  cases,  he  treated 
as  purely  directory  has  been  recognized  in  all  the  States."  In  regard  to  capital 
trials  for  murder  in  Michigan,  a  statute,  requiring  a  circuit  judge  to  assign  a  day 
for  the  trial,  has  been  held  clearly  directory  so  far  as  time  is  concerned." 

In  this  case  the  statute  imperatively  required  that  a  day  should  be  assigned  for 
the  trial  of  the  capital  cases ;  the  statute  was  made  in  favor  of  the  prisoner,  in 
favor  of  life,  and  yet  the  courts  uphold  the  action  of  one  of  its  officers  acting 
thus  in  a  manifest  disregard  of  this  charitable  and  mandatory  requirement  of  the 
law. 

But  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary,  as  I  stated  in  regard  to  the  first  position,  to 
maintain  the  third  to  the  extent  to  which  I  have  carried  it.  The  second,  as  I 
have  indicated  to  the  court,  is  conclusive  upon  this  subject.  These  men  were 
present  doing  the  act,  and  you  cannot  inquire  into  what  part  was  done  by  one 
and  Avhat  part  by  another.  It  is  their  act.  The  list  of  jurors  Avas  placed  in  the 
box  by  them,  and  the  certfiicate  is  signed  by  thi'ee  men.  They  have  therefore 
ratified  by  their  OAvn  signature  what  was  done;  they  have,  by  their  subsequent 
act,  declared  that  this  box  was  made  up  according  to  law.  Now  I  ask  my 
learned  brethren  upon  the  other  side  to  answer  me  this  question :  Suppose  thi'ee 
men  were  to  meet  together  in  conclave — suppose  the  clerk  of  Georgetown  and  of 
the  levy  coiirt  had  said  to  Mr.  Douglass,  take  your  list  and  make  out  from 
your  list  these  men  from  Washington  that  ought  to  go  in  this  box,  and  he  had 
done  it,  and  conjointly  Avith  the  others  deposited  the  names  in  the  box,  would 
your  honor  come  into  court  and  say  these  men  had  not  performed  the  duties 
charged  upon  them  as  quasi  oi&cial  duties?  Unquestionably  not.  But,  say  my 
brethren  upon  the  other  side,  he  made  out  no  list.  He  did  make  a  list,  call  it  by 
Avhat  name  you  please.  He  made  out  four  hundred  names  of  those  he  regarded 
as  best  qualified  in  the  city  of  Washington  ;  he  was  not  required  to  make  any 
more.  The  number  of  individuals  who  should  be  upon  that  list  or  who  should 
compose  it  Avere  matters  exclusively  within  his  oavu  discretion,  and  when  he 
made  out  four  hundred  names  it  was  an  exercise  of  his  discretion  in  the  selection 
of  men  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors. 

But  I  am  consuming  time  unnecessarily,  for  the  case  is  definitely  settled  by 
the  judges  of  England  in  their  unanimous  opinion  in  the  famous  case  of  Daniel 
O'Connell.  I  refer  to  11  Clark  and  Finnelly,  page  167.  Daniel  O'Connell 
being  indicted  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  applied  his  challenge  to  the 
array  of  jurors,  and  your  honor  will  perceive  that  the  refusal  to  grant  him  the  ben- 
efit of  the  challenge  to  this  array  was  a  A'ery  hard  and  possibly  a  very  harsh  one. 

The  challenge  of  the  defendant,  Daniel  O'Connell,  was  as  follows  .  "  And 
the  said  Daniel  O'Connell  thereupon,  in  his  own  proper  person,  challenges  the 
array  of  the  said  panel,  because,  he  says,  that  at  the  special  sessions  heretofore 
holden  in  and  for  the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin  on  the  14th  of  November, 
1S43,  before  the  right  honorable  Frederick  ShaAV,  recorder  of  the  said  city,  for 
the  purpose  of  examining  the  list  of  jurors  for  the  said  city  for  the  now  current 
year  1844,  pursuant  to  the  statutable  enactments  in  such  case  made  and  pro- 
A-ided,  the  clerks  of  the  peace  in  and  for  the  said  city  duly  laid  before  the  re- 
corder divers,  to  wit  :  Twenty  lists  theretofore  duly  furnished  to  the  clerks  of 
the  peace  by  the  scA-eral  collectors  of  grand  jury  cess  within  the  city,  in  that  be- 
half duly  authorized  to  make  such  lists,  containing  or  purporting  to  contain  a 
true  list  of  every  man  residing  Avithin  their  respectiA-e  districts." 

Now,  your  honor,  the  law  under  Avhich  this  challenge  was  interposed,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  requirements  by  which  it  was  expected  to  be  made  aA'ailable,  pro- 
vided the  clerks  of  the  peace  for  the  city  of  Dublin  should  lay  before  the  re- 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  23 

corder  certain  lists  whicli  were  to  be  furuislied  to  the  clerks  of  tlie  peace  by  the 
several  collectors  of  the  grand  jury  cess.  The  lists  were  to  be  made  by  the  col- 
lectors of  persons  qualified  to  act  as  jurors.  The  collectors  having  made  out  the 
list  were  to  furnish  them  to  the  clerks  of  the  peace,  the  clerks  of  the  peace  were 
to  furnish  them  to  the  recoi'der,  the  recorder  was  to  certify  to  the  qualification, 
and  from  these  lists  the  jury  book  was  to  be  made  out,  and  from  the  juiy  book 
the  sheriff  was  to  collect  the  panel.  This  was  the  law.  Now  the  challenge  set 
forth  what  I  have  read  to  your  honor,  and  goes  on  to  say : 

"And  that  the  said  several  lists  respectively  were  at  the  special  sessions  duly 
corrected,  allowed,  and  signed  by  the  said  recorder,  pursuant,  &c. ;  and  that 
the  several  persons  whose  names  are  hereinafter  mentioned  were  then  and  there 
adjudged  by  the  recorder  to  have  the  qualifications  hereinafter  named,  and  that 
the  names  of  the  several  persons  were  then  and  there  contained  in  the  said  seve- 
ral lists  so  corrected,  allowed,  and  signed  as  aforesaid." 

Your  honor  will  observe  you  have  now  got  your  list  from  the  collectors  of  the 
grand  jury  cess  to  the  clerks  of  the  peace,  from  the  clerks  of  the  peace  to 
the  recorder,  and  your  lists  are  certified  and  approved  by  the  recorder.  He 
goes  on : 

"But  that  the  recorder  did  not,  as  by  the  said  statutable  enactments  is  directed, 
cause  to  be  made  out  from  the  said  several  last-mentioned  lists  one  general  list 
containing  the  names  of  all  persons  whose  qualifications  had  been  so  allowed, 
arranged  according  to  rank  and  property  ;  nor  did  the  recorder  thereupon,  or  at 
all,  deliver  such  general  list  containing  such  names  to  the  clei'ks  of  the  peace,  to 
be  fairly  copied  by  the  said  clerks  of  the  peace  in  the  same  order  as  by  the  said 
statutable  enactments  is  directed,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof  omitted  so  to  do  ; 
and  that  a  certain  paper  writing,  purporting  to  be  a  general  list,  purporting  to 
be  made  out  from  such  several  lists  so  corrected,  allowed,  and  signed  as  afore- 
said, was  illegally  and  fraudulently  made  out  by  some  person  or  persons  un- 
known ;  and  that  the  said  paper  writing,  purporting  to  be  such  general  list  as 
aforesaid,  did  not  contain  the  names  of  all  the  persons  whose  qualifications  had 
been  allowed  upon  the  correcting,  allowing,  and  signing  of  said  lists  as  aforesaid 
by  the  recorder,  but  omitted  the  names  of  divers,  to  wit,  fifty-nine  persons." 

Following  your  list  then  from  the  collector  of  the  grand  jury  cess  and 
clerks  of  the  peace  to  the  recorder,  and  the  recorder  having,  as  your  honor  ob- 
serves, approved  and  ratified  these  lists,  it  then  appears  that  the  recorder  failed 
to  make  out  a  general  list  and  make  a  copy  of  the  list  which  he  had  approved, 
but  that  some  unknown  party  made  out  a  list  omitting  fifty-nine  names  that 
were  upon  the  lists  approved  by  the  recorder,  and  that  this  had  been  done 
fraudulently  and  illegally. 

"And  the  said  Daniel  O'Connell  further  says  that  the  several  persons  whose 
names  were  so  omitted  from  the  fraudulent  paper  writing,  purporting  to  be  the 
general  list,  were,  at  the  time  of  the  return  of  the  collectors'  lists,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  special  sessions,  and  still  are  severally  residents  within  the  said  city, 
and  were  at  the  several  times,  aud  now  are,  duly  qualified  to  be,  and  should 
and  ought  to  have  bc-en  placed  upon  the  general  list ;  and  that  from  the  fraudu- 
lent paper  writing  purporting  to  be  such  general  list  as  aforesaid,  a  certain  book, 
purporting  to  be  the  jurors'  book  of  the  said  city  for  the  current  calendar  year, 
1844,  was  made  up  and  framed." 

Your  honor  will  see  that  the  jury  book  was  formed  from  this  fraudulent  list, 
and  that  on  that  ground  the  challenge  was  interposed.  The  demui'rer  was  filed 
conceding  all  the  facts — conceding  that  the  lists  made  out  had  not  been  made  up  by 
the  recorder,  that  it  had  been  made  up  by  some  person  unknown,  that  it  h:ul  been 
fraudulently  made  up  for  this  case,  and  that  from  the  very  list  thus  fraudulently 
made  up  the  jurors'  list  had  been  taken,  and  the  jury  had  been  summoned  by  the 
sheriff.  The  court  below  sustained  the  demurrer.  The  case  went  up  to  the  House 
of  Lords,  aud  the  lords  called  upon  the  judges  of  England  for  their  counsel.    The 


24  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREA.TT. 

judges  of  England  were  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  demurrer,  and  the  lords 
co-operated  with  them.  The  opinion  held  by  Chief  Justice  D.  Tindal.  giving 
the  unanimous  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  judges  will  afford  to  your  honor  an 
easy  and  clear  solution  of  the  difficulty  presented  to  you  here,  while  the  lord 
chancellor  in  giving  his  opinion  coincides  with  Chief  Justice  Tindal,  and  eluci- 
dates the  subject,  as  I  think  your  honor  will  say,  to  your  entire  satisfaction.  I  beg 
leave  to  read  from  a  portion  of  Chief  Justice  Tindal's  opinion.  On  page  S32 
your  honor  will  find  the  question  propounded  by  the  lords  and  the  judges.  The 
question  is  this : 

"Is  there  any  sufficient  ground  for  reversing  the  judgment  on  account  of  the 
judgments  of  the  court  overruling  and  disallowing  the  challenges  to  the  array, 
or  any  or  either  of  them,  or  of  the  matters  stated  in  such  challenges?" 

On  page  247  Chief  Justice  Tindal  in  his  opinion  says  : 

"  The  answer  to  the  sixth  question  (ante,  p.  232)  Avill  depend  upon  the  princi- 
ple upon  which  the  law  allows  a  challenge  to  the  array  of  a  jury.  The  only 
ground  upon  which  the  clialleuge  to  the  array  is  allowed  by  the  English  law,  is 
the  unindifferency  or  defeult  of  the  sheriff.  But  no  want  of  indifferency  in  the 
sheriff,  nor  any  defoult  in  him  or  his  officers  was  assigned  for  the  cause  of  chal- 
lenge upon  this  occasion. 

"The  array  of  the  panel  is  challenged  in  this  case  upon  the  ground  that  the 
general  list  from  which  the  jurors'  book  is  made  up,  had  not  been  completed  in 
every  respect  in  conformity  with  the  requisites  of  the  statutes,  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  the  names  of  fifty-nine  persons  duly  qualified  to  serve  on  the  jury  for 
the  county  of  the  city  of  Dublin,  were  omitted  from  the  general  list,  and 
from  the  special  jurors'  book  of  the  said  county,  but  the  challenge  contains  no 
accusation  against  the  sheriff,  or  any  of  his  subordinate  officers.  The  challenge 
by  each  of  the  defendants  alleges  in  deed,  "  that  a  list,  purporting  to  be  a  gen- 
eral list,  was  illegally  and  fraudulently  made  out,  by  some  person  or  per- 
sons unknown  ;"  and  the  challenge  by  Mr.  Steele  states  further,  "  that  the 
names  were  left  out  for  the  purpose  and  with  the  intent  of  prejudicing  the  said 
Thomas  Steele  in  this  cause,  by  some  person  or  persons  unknown;"  but  neither 
in  the  one  case  nor  in  the  other  is  the  most  distant  suggestion  that  the  sheriff  is 
in  fault.  The  sheriff  therefore  being  neither  unindifferent  nor  in  default,  the 
principle  upon  which  the  challenge  to  the  array  is  given  by  law,  does  not  apply 
to  the  present  case.  The  statute  has,  in  fact,  taken  from  the  sheriff  that  duty 
of  selecting  jurymen  which  the  ancient  law  imposed  upon  him,  and  has  substi- 
tuted instead  a  new  machinery  in  the  hands  of  certain  officers,  by  whom  the  list 
is  to  be  prepared  for  the  sheriff's  use." 

I  beg  here  in  this  connection  to  call  your  honor's  attention  to  one  particular 
feature  of  this  opinion  of  the  learned  judge,  reasoning  upon  the  doctrine  that 
the  only  cause  of  challenge  is  unindifferency  or  default  on  the  part  of  the  sheriff. 
My  learned  brother  on  the  other  side  will  see  that  the  sheriff  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  selection  of  the  jurymen.  The  statute  having  taken  from  the  sheriff 
that  duty  anciently  imposed  upon  him,  and  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  other  offi- 
cers by  whom  the  list  is  to  be  prepared  for  the  sheriff's  use;  and  yet,  although 
it  appeared  that  the  list  prepared  by  these  officers  was  substituted  for  another 
improperly  and  fraudulently ;  still  the  challenge  was  not  allowed,  because 
the  only  ground  of  challenge  must  be  unindifferency  or  default  on  the  part 
of  the  sheriff.  Here  we  have  a  similar  substitute  of  machinery,  the  statute 
having  taken  from  the  marshal  the  selection  of  the  jury  and  placed  it  in 
the  custody  of  other  officers  in  a  manner  very  much  analogous  to  the  law  of 
England.  There  the  assessors  were  to  furnish  the  list  to  the  clerks  of  the  peace, 
the  clerks  of  the  peace  to  the  recorder,  the  recorder  to  make  out  a  clear  list 
the  jury  book,  and  a  copy  of  that  list  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  sheriff. 
Here  the  clerk  of  Georgetown,  of  the  levy  court,  and  the  register  of  Wash- 
ington are  to  prepare  certain  names  and  put  them  in  a  box,  which  box  is  to  be 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.   SURRATT.  25 

placed  in  charge  of  the  clerk  of  the  supreme  court  to  be  sealed  up.  From  that  box 
the  jurors  are  to  be  drawn,  and  return  is  to  be  certified  by  the  clerk  of  the  crim- 
inal court.  The  sheriff  has  nothing  to  do  with  all  this.  There  tlie  challenge  is 
made  because  the  jury  book  was  not  prepared  in  conformity  to  law ;  here  be- 
cause the  jury  box  was  not  prepared  as  alleged  in  strict  conformity  to  the  law. 
The  two  stand  precisely  alike  so  far  as  the  preparation  of  the  juiy  book  there 
and  the  jury  box  here  is  concerned.     The  chief  justice  goes  on  : 

"  If  the  sheriff,  when  the  jurors'  book  was  furnished  to  him,  had  acted  im- 
properly in  selecting  the  names  of  the  jury  from  the  book,  such  misconduct 
would  have  been  a  good  cause  of  challenge  to  the  array  ;  but  that  which  is 
really  complained  of  is,  that  the  material  of  the  book  out  of  which  the  jury  is 
selected  by  the  sheriff",  and  for  which  the  sheriff"  is  not  responsible,  has  been  im- 
properly composed.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  ground  of  challenge  to  the  array ; 
and  further,  it  is  manifest  that  no  object  or  advantage  could  have  been  gained 
if  the  challenge  had  been  allowed,  for  if  the  challenge  had  been  allowed,  the 
jury  process  would  have  been  directed  to  some  other  officer,  who  would  have 
been  obliged  to  choose  bis  jury  out  of  the  very  same  special  jurors'  book  as 
that  which  the  sheriff  had  acted  on,  for  no  other  was  in  existence.  The  same 
objection  might  again  be  made  to  the  jury  panel  secondly  returned,  and  so  totics 
quoties,  so  that  the  granting  of  this  challenge  would,  in  effect,  amount  to  the 
preventing  the  case  from  being  brought  to  trial  at  all.  The  very  same  difficulty 
might  occur  in  England,  if,  throiigh  accident,  carelessness,  or  design,  a  single 
juiy  list,  directed  to  be  returned  by  the  overseers  of  any  parish  within  the 
county,  were  not  handed  over  to  the  clerk  of  the  peace,  or  if  a  single  name 
should  have  been  omitted  in  any  list  actually  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  peace. 
The  jury  book  must  necessarily  in  either  case  be  deficiently  made  up.  But  if 
deficiency  were  allowed  to  be  a  ground  of  challenge  to  the  array,  the  business 
of  every  assize  in  the  kingdom  might  effectually  be  stopped.  That  there  must 
be  some  mode  of  relief  for  an  injury  occasioned  by  such  non-observance  of  the 
directions  of  an  act  of  Pai'liament,  is  undeniable ;  but  the  only  question  before 
us  is,  Avhether  it  is  the  ground  of  challenge  to  the  array  ?  and  we  all  agree  in 
thinking  it  is  not,  and  therefore  we  answer  this  question  in  the  negative." 

I  will  not  detain  the  court  by  reading  from  the  opinion  of  the  learned  lord 
chancellor,  for  he  pursues  the  same  course  of  reasoning  as  that  pursued  by 
Chief  Justice  Tindal,  and  coincides  in  the  opinion  I  have  read.     He  says  : 

"  If  the  sheriff  is  unindiflferent,  to  use  the  legal  expression,  if  he  is  not  equal 
between  the  parties,  that  is  a  ground  of  challenge  to  the  array.  If  he  is  guilty 
of  any  default  in  returning  the  jury,  that  also  is  a  ground  for  this  species  of 
challenge.  Those  are  the  only  grounds  of  challenge  to  the  array.  They  are 
of  a  personal  nature,  and  are  confined  to  the  sheriff"  or  other  officer,  whoever  he 
may  be,  by  whom  the  jury  is  returned." 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  there  is  anything  peculiar  in  the  character  of  the  sher- 
iff that  makes  him  specially  liable  in  the  particular  mentioned  in  this  opinion, 
but  it  is  the  officer  who  makes  return  that  must  be  guilty  of  unindifferency  or 
default ;  but  the  opinion  goes  to  the  extent  that  a  challenge  of  the  array  is  only 
proper  where  there  is  a  default  of  the  officer  Avho  makes  the  return  of  the  par- 
ticular jury,  and  not  of  the  officer  who  selects  the  particular  jury.  There 
ought  to  be,  and  there  is  a  remedy  where  the  jury  book  or  the  jury  box  lias  not 
been  properly  prepared,  but  it  is  not  a  remedy  by  challenging  the  array.  That 
remedy  applies  only  where  the  officer  making  the  return  of  the  particular  petit 
jury  has  been  guilty  in  selecting  that  particular  jury. 

I  respectfully  submit,  therefore,  that  if  this  case  in  England  is  law,  there  is 
no  difficult  question  before  this  court.  And  if  it  is  not,  there  is  no  difficult 
question,  because,  as  I  have  said,  those  men  were  present  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duty. 

And  I  further  state,  that  if  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a  defect  in  thi^ 


26  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

jury  (if  there  be  a  defect)  and  we  go  to  trial,  we  thereby  waive  any  advantage  that 
we  might  otherwise  be  entitled  to  in  consequence  of  that  defect.  The  learned 
counsel  on  the  other  side,  yesterday  seemed  to  suppose  it  was  not  competent  for 
us  to  waive  that  advantage.  I  find  the  rule  to  be  that  wherever  a  jury  or  juror 
is  liable  to  challenge  and  a  verdict  is  found,  even  in  a  capital  case,  the  party 
cannot  take  advantage  of  any  defect  in  the  jury  unless  he  was  ignorant  of  th-. 
defect  before  he  went  to  trial,  and  unless  it  so  appears  upon  record.  It  is 
necessary  that  he  should  make  affidavit  to  the  fact  that  a  knowledge  of  the 
incapacity  of  the  juror  came  to  him  after  the  trial.  If  he  had  that  knowledge 
before  the  trial,  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  allege  it  in  support  of  a  motion  for 
a  new  trial. 

I  may  be  allowed  to  suggest  also  to  your  honor,  that  this  motion  is  not  founded 
upon  any  alleged  incapacity  of  the  jurors  themselves ;  it  is  simply  upon 
the  warrant  on  which  they  were  selected.  It  is  possible — it  is  unquestionably 
true,  that  if  it  were  founded  upon  any  incapacity  of  the  individual  jurors — if 
it  were  founded  upon  the  absence  of  any  of  the  legal  qualifications  prescribed 
for  jurors,  the  motion  might  be  entertained  by  the  court.  But  it  is  not  because 
of  any  legal  disqualification  of  any  of  the  jurors  composing  the  panel,  but  simply 
because  they  have  not  been  brought  here  in  the  way  the  gentlemen  think  they 
ought  to  have  been  brought. 

I  hope  the.  United  States  is  looking  for  the  attainment  of  justice  in  this  case  ; 
I  trust  nothing  may  be  developed  in  this  case  looking  towards  anything  else. 
I  trust  the  government  will  tread  the  high  and  honorable  path  which  leads  to 
the  attainment  of  simple,  and  I  may  add,  speedy  justice.  And  entertaining 
this  hope,  I  suggest  to  your  honor,  whether  it  is  probable  a  jury  against  whose 
qualification  nothing  is  alleged,  who  were  summoned  without  regard  to  this  case, 
and  before  it  was  anticipated  it  might  be  tried,  are  not  better  fitted  to  do  justice 
than  another  summoned  in  anticipation  of  the  case — a  case  not  of  an  ordinary 
private  nature,  but  one  of  great  public  interest,  in  which,  while  the  United 
States  as  a  government,  I  trust  will  tread  in  the  highways  I  have  spoken  of,  there 
are  individuals  occupying  offices  in  that  government  who  may  be  disposed  to 
tread  lower  paths,  through  which  we  will  have  to  follow. 

May  it  please  your  honor,  I  shall  say  no  more  upon  this  motion  than  to  add 
that  after  the  most  careful  examination  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  it,  the  honest 
conelusiou  to  Avhich  I  have  come  is,  that  the  ground,  probably,  upon  which  the 
motion  rests,  is  to  be  found  in  the  act  of  1853,  page  160,  10  Statutes  at  Large, 
which  act  provides  that  where  a  criminal  case  is  on  trial  in  this  court,  and  a 
jury  has  been  impanelled,  and  another  term  begins  during  the  progress  of  the 
trial,  the  cause  shall  continue ;  but  leaves  it  exceedingly  questionable  whether, 
unless  the  jury  is  fully  impanelled  before  the  end  of  the  term,  the  cause  can 
be  tried.  That  other  term  begins  on  IMonday  next,  and  unless  a  jury  in  this 
case  is  impanelled  before  Saturday  night  it  is  questionable  whether  this  case 
will  be  tried  for  many  days  or  many  years. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  May  it  please  your  honor ;  when  learned  and  eminent 
counsel  arise  in  a  solemn  manner  to  address  the  court,  I  always  suppose  them 
to  be  sincere.  1  have  no  doubt  that  the  learned  and  eminent  gentleman  who 
has  just  taken  his  seat  is  not  only  sincere,  but  earnest  in  the  extreme,  in  his 
desire  to  prevent  the  success  of  this  motion.  The  logic  of  that  sincerity  will 
be  apparent  when  I  quote  the  beginning  of  his  s'peech.  He  says  :  "  If  this 
motion  prevail,  then  the  grand  jury  which  found  this  indictment  was  illegal, 
and  it  puts  my  client  at  large." 

Now,  I  suppose,  my  learned  friend  came  here  to  put  his  client  at  large. 

Mr.  Merrick.  By  the  verdict  of  a  jury. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  not,  Avhy  is  he  here?  I  conceive  that  he  is  not  here  for 
any  other  purose  than  to  put  his  client  at  large.  If  the  motion  that  we  have  made, 
he  says,  prevail,  his  client  is  at  large  ;  and  yet  he  talks  an  earnest  hour  to  your  hon- 
or in  order  to  have  you  deny  this  motion,  and  thus  prevent  his  client  being  at  large. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  27 

Let  us  see  what  all  tins  means.  It  is  a  very  cxtraordino.iy  spectacle,  truly, 
to  have  a  lawyer,  earnest  in  the  defence  of  his  client,  rising  and  telling  your 
honor,  that  if  the  very  thing  we  ask  is  done  his  client  is  free  ;  and  yet  exerting 
himself  with  an  earnestness  and  an  ingenuity  which  is  commendable,  to  prevent 
his  client  from  gaining  his  liberty.  It  is  something  new  in  the  administration 
of  justice.  I  fimcy,  your  honor,  that  I  have  a  right  to  infer  either  that  he  is 
not  sincere  in  believing  that  the  success  of  this  motion  would  set  his  client  at 
large,  or  else  he  will  have  to  meet  this  extraordinary  result,  that  he  does  not 
wish  to  have  his  client  at  large. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Will  the  learned  counsel  allow  me  a  moment  ?  I  merely  wish 
to  say  in  reply  to  the  first  suggestion,  M-liich  he  is  now  eliminating,  that  I  desire 
my  client  to  be  set  at  large  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury.  IMy  judgment  is  that  if 
this  motion  prevail,  this  indictment  ftxUs  ;  but  the  blood-hounds  of  the  law  may 
still  track  him  for  another  indictment.  I  desire  him  to  go  forth  from  this  court- 
room free  from  accusation  and  protected  for  the  future. 

Mr.  PlEKRBPONT.  Well,  then,  your  honor,  the  reason  is  that  he  wants  him 
tried  by  a  jury,  and  that  is  exactly  what  we  want.  I  called  your  honor's  at- 
tention yesterday  to  die  section  of  the  statute  now  before  me,  that  whenever 
there  is  a  failure  from  any  cause  with  regard  to  a  jury,  the  marshal  shall  summon 
good  and  lawful  men  under  this  law  to  exercise  that  high  function  ;  and  we 
yesterday  proposed,  in  order  that  no  delay  might  be  had,  that  the  marshal  should 
proceed  to  summon  a  jury,  and  if  they  choose  to  say  so,  we  will  without  another 
word  say,  let  the  marshal  proceed,  under  your  honor's  direction,  to  subpoena  a 
jury  and  biing  them  into  this  court  to  try  this  case.  They  will  discover  before 
we  progress  much  further,  that  the  United  States  are  as  zealous,  as  earn- 
est, and  as  eager,  to  try  this  cause  as  the  other  side;  and  they  will  discover 
before  it  is  through  that  the  public  mind  will  be  set  right  with  regard  to  a  great 
many  subjects  about  which  there  have  been  such  active,  numerous,  and  un- 
founded reports.  Since  I  have  been  here  in  this  city  for  these  past  few  days, 
has  it  been  circulated  in  nearly  all  the  journals  of  this  country,  that  the  United 
States  dared  not  bring  forward  the  diary  found  upon  the  murderer  of  the  Presi- 
dent, because  that  diary  would  prove  things  they  did  not  want  to  have  known. 
All  these  things  will  be  proved  to  be  false,  and  all  the  papers,  about  the  sup- 
pression of  which  so  much  has  been  said,  will  be  exhibited  here  on  the  trial 
of  this  case.  We  are  anxious  that  it  should  be  proceeded  with  at  once.  It 
has  likewise  been  circulated  through  all  the  public  jom-ujils,  that  after  the 
former  convictions,  when  an  effort  was  made  to  go  to  the  President  for  pardon, 
men  active  here  at  the  seat  of  government  prevented  any  attempt  being  made, 
or  the  President  being  even  reached  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  he  would 
not  exercise  clemency;  whereas,  the  truth,  and  the  truth  of  record  which  will 
be  presented  in  this  court,  is  that  all  this  matter  was  brought  before  the  Presi- 
dent and  presented  to  a  full  Cabinet  meeting  where  it  was  thoroughly  discussed  ; 
and  after  such  discussion,  condemnation  and  execution  received  not  only  the 
sanction  of  the  President  but  that  of  every  member  of  his  Cabinet.  This  and 
a  thousand  .)tlier  of  these  ffilse  stories  will  be  all  set  at  rest  forever  in  the  pro- 
gress of  this  trial ;  and  the  gentlemen  may  feel  assured  that  not  only  are  we 
ready  but  that  we  are  desirous  of  proceeding  at  once  with  the  case. 

If  your  honor  please,  it  is  inconceivable  to  the  human  mind  that  mortal  man 
can  be  placed  in  a  more  solemn  position  than  in  coming  before  a  court  and  a 
jury  where  a  fellow  mm  is  to  be  tried  for  his  life  for  tlie  murder  of  another. 
More  than  ordinarily  solemn  is  this  great  occasion.  On  the  14th  of  April,  1865, 
a  crime  was  committed  that  shocked  the  whole  civilized  world  ;  a  crime  against 
human  b'fe  ;  a  crime  against  the  laws  ;  and  a  crime  against  our  beloved  govern- 
ment. Men  have  suffered  death  for  that  crime,  and  one,  who  is  now  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar,  by  the  grand  jury  of  your  District,  has  been  found  to  have  been  en- 
gaged in  that  great  crime.     He  is  here  to  be  tried.     We  hope  he  will  be  tried 


28  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURRATT. 

and  in  a  way  that  is  decent  and  becoming,  with  all  the  solemnities  and  with  all  the 
forms  of  law;  that  he  will  be  tried  justly  and  ftiirly ;  and  we  desire  that  the 
jury  who  shall  sit  to  try  him  shall  be  a  jury  brought  here,  accorling  to  all  the 
forms  of  law,  so  that  when  they  shall  render  their  verdict,  whether  that  verdict 
be  acquittal  or  condemnation,  this  whole  country  and  the  entire  civilized  world, 
who  will  read  that  verdict  will  know  and  feel  that  the  man  has  b(!en  tried  fairly, 
that  he  has  been  tried  justly,  that  he  has  been  tried  by  a  judge  of  high  moral 
character  and  great  legal  learning,  that  he  has  been  defended  by  able  counsel, 
and  that  the  verdict,  for  him  or  against  him,  has  been  pronounced  by  honest 
jurors  who  are  brought  here  in  all  respects  according  to  the  law. 

This  motion  is  made  for  the  purpose  that  when  this  trial  shall  take  place,  it 
shall  be  in  such  a  way  that  all  men  everywhere  shall  see  it  has  been  such  a  trial 
as  the  occasion  requires,  that  it  shall  not  be  a  mockery  and  a  sham,  and  that  the 
prisoner  shall  not  be  tried  by  jurors  who  are  not  legal  triers,  but  by  jurors  that 
are  brought  here  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  fit  and  proper  men  to  try 
this  case  as  the  law  directs. 

My  learned  friend  while  making  the  assertion  to  your  honor  that  the  preva- 
lence of  our  motion  would  set  his  client  at  large,  at  the  same  time  urges  your 
honor  to  deny  this  motion,  and  says  that  we  cannot  look  into  the  acts  of  this 
jury,  nor  into  the  statutes  which  direct  how  a  jury  shall  be  empanelled  or  how 
they  shall  be  selected,  and  cites  a  case  from  England,  which  I  shall  presently 
call  to  your  attention,  in  relation  to  the  sheriff  of  England.  Permit  me  to  say 
that  in  looking  at  your  laws,  I  discover  that  the  sheriff  has  no  more  to  do  with 
this  jury  than  the  clerk  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Neither  the  sheriff, 
nor  the  marshal  occupying  the  place  of  sheriff,  has  any  responsible  duty  in  re- 
lation to  the  empanelling  of  this  jury.  Now  I  call  your  attention  to  the  law, 
and  I  submit  to  your  honor  that  when  a  man  is  to  be  tried  for  his  life,  if  the 
verdict  is  to  be  of  any  validity,  he  must  be  tried  according  to  the  law.  In  this 
country  and  in  England  from  which  we  derive  our  notions  of  liberty,  ever  has 
the  law  been  jealous  of  human  life,  and  so  jealous  that  I  believe  it  to  be  a  well- 
settled  principle  of  law  that  no  stipulation  of  counsel  and  no  stipulation  of  the 
prisoner  ever  could  allow  him  to  be  tried  by  twelve  men  and  convicted  and  ex- 
ecuted upon  such  a  verdict.  The  law  of  public  policy  is  that  the  man  who  is 
to  be  tried  for  his  life  shall  be  tried  in  all  respects  according  to  law  ;  that  the 
judge  who  tries  him  shall  sit  according  to  the  law ;  and  that  the  Avitnesses  shall 
be  sworn  and  testify  according  to  the  rules  of  law ;  and  the  jurors  who  are  to 
bring  in  their  judgment  upon  such  a  man  are  to  be  selected  in  the  way  that  the 
law  directs ;  and  if  selected  otherwise  the  verdict  is  good  for  nothing.  Let  us 
see  what  the  statute  says  about  it — the  statute  under  which  these  jurors  have 
any  power  whatever  to  try  this  prisoner.  Save  for  this  statute  these  jurors  have 
no  more  right  to  sit  in  judgment  than  jurors  from  the  city  of  New  York  or  from 
the  city  of  London.     What  does  the  statute  say  ?     Let  me  read  it : 

"  Be  it  enacted  hy  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  (hngress  assembled,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  regis- 
ter of  Washington  city  and  of  the  respective  clerks  of  the  city  of  Georgetown  and 
the  levy  court  of  Washington  county,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  within  one 
month  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  February 
in  each  year  thereafter,  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white  male  citizens,  tax- 
payers, residing  within  their  respective  jurisdictions,  as  they  shall  judge  best 
qualified  to  serve  as  jurors  in  the  courts  of  the  said  District." 

Now  what  is  required  by  this  law  in  the  very  first  section  ?  That  the 
jurors  shall  be  white  male  citizens,  tax- payers,  of  this  District,  otherwise 
they  cannot  be  jurors.  Now  let  me  ask  my  learned  friend  if  he  had  come 
into  this  court  and  discovered  that  every  juryman  sitting  in  these  seats  was  a 
negro,  and  he  had  made  the  motion  we  have  now  made,  and  I  had  risen  and 
said  to  him,  "  You  cannot  set  aside  this  panel  because  you  have  heard  the  evi- 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT.  29 

dence  bore  of  these  men  who  selected  it,  and  you  cannot  go  behind  wliat  the}'- 
say  about  it."  What  would  my  learned  friend  say  to  the  argument  ?  Suppose 
I  took  his  own  ingenious  and  excellent  argument  and  turned  it  against  himself, 
what  would  he  say  to  it?  Would  he  think  it  a  good  argument  if  every  man 
who  sat  there  was  a  negro?  Would  he  not  turn  me  to  this  statute  and  say  "  of 
the  white  male  citizens,"  and  then  turn  to  your  honor  and  say,  "Arc  these  white 
male  citizens,  every  man  of  whom  is  a  woolly-headed  African  ?  [Laughter.] 
He  cannot  meet  that  suggestion  ;  and  the  case  is  precisely  parallel  to  the  one  at  bar. 

Mr.  jMerrick.  If  my  learned  friend  will  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Any. 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  Does  the  learned  gentleman  include  in  his  motion  challenging 
this  array  any  objection  to  the  personal  qualification  of  these  jurors  1 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  most  assuredly  do. 

Mr.  jMerrick.  I  was  not  aware  of  it. 

Mr.  PlERREPOiNT.  They  are  just  as  much  disqualified  as  though  they  were 
negroes.  The  statute  says  they  shall  be  "white;"  and  the  statute  says  they 
shjill  be  "tax-payers;"  and  the  statute  says  they  shall  reside  within  this  Dis- 
trict. We  find  they  are  not  a  jury  of  tax-payers,  and  they  are  not  a  jury  of 
negroes;  but  they  might  just  as  well  have  been  tax-payers  and  negroes,  for  on 
inquiry  of  my  learned  friend,  the  district  attorney,  I  am  informed  that  you  have 
in  your  District  negroes  who  are  tax-payers.  If  these,  then,  had  been  tax-paying 
negroes,  they  would  have  been  just  as  well  qualified  as  white  non-tax-payers, 
and  there  is  no  getting  rid  of  it. 

Let  us  see  what  further  the  statute  says  on  this  subject.  I  am  only  in  the 
beginning  of  it.  Those  are  the  men  that  the  law  says  are  to  be  selected  as 
jurors.  I  repeat,  let  us  see  what  further  it  says.  And  they  may  put  in  "  the 
names  of  such  qualified  persons  as  were  on  the  list  the  previous  year,  but  who 
did  not  serve  as  jurors  ;  and  the  lists  thus  made  of  the  register  and  clerks  afore- 
said shall  be  kept  by  them  respectively  and  be  delivered  to  their  successors  in 
office."  These  three  men  shall  make  their  lists  of  tax-payers  who  are  white 
in  these  three  districts.  What  shall  they  do  Avhen  they  get  together  ?  The 
officers  aforesaid  shall  select  from  the  list  of  the  register  of  Washington  city  the 
names  of  four  hundred  pci-sons.  That  is  what  these  three  men  are  to  do.  This 
board,  as  my  learned  adversary  calls  it,  and  very  justly,  are  to  select  first  from 
the  list  of  the  n  gister  of  the  city  of  Washington  four  hundred  names.  Let  us 
start  there.  Did  they  select  from  the  register's  list  of  the  city  of  W^ashington 
four  hundred  names  ?  He  tells  you  that  they  never  selected  one  name,  and  that 
he  never  had  there  a  list,  first  or  last.  When  I  asked  him  on  the  cross-exam- 
ination here  yesterday,  after  they  had  brought  him  here,  "  Did  the  others  even 
see  the  rolls  of  the  names  that  you  put  into  the  box?"  He  said  "No." 
"  Did  you  see  any  that  they  put  in?"  He  said  "No."  And  you  will  find 
it  so  appears  on  the  record. 

What  was  the  object  of  this  law  ?  The  register  of  the  city  of  Washington 
was  to  bi-ing  the  list  of  tax-payers  whom  he  deemed  qualified.  The  clerk  of 
the  levy  court  was  to  bring  his  list  of  tax-payers  M'hom  he  judged  to  be  quali- 
fied. The  clerk  of  Georgetown  was  to  bring  his  list  of  tax-jmyers  Avhom  he 
thought  to  be  qualified.  And  this  board,  thus  together,  was  to  select  first  from 
the  register's  list  of  the  city  of  Washington  the  names  of  four  hundred  persons, 
from  that  of  the  clerk  of  Georgetown  eighty,  and  from  that  of  the  clerk  of  the 
levy  court  forty.  Did  these  three  men  select  from  the  list  of  the  register  of 
Washington  four  hundred  ?  They  never  selected  a  man,  and  that  evidence  is 
perfect  and  complete.  Did  the  three  select  from  the  list  of  the  clerk  of  George- 
town eighty  persons  ?  Not  a  man.  Did  this  board  select  from  the  list  of  the 
clerk  of  the  levy  court  forty  ?  Not  one.  Now,  there  was  some  reason  for 
this  law,  was  there  n(;t  ?  The  object  of  it  was  to  have  a  fair  jury.  This 
statute  was  passed  by  the    Congress   of  the    United    States  for  the  govern- 


30  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

ment  of  this  District,  in  Avhicli  it  was  known  when  the  statute  was  passed 
that  there  were  persons  of  a  variety  of  views  in  relation  to  the  great  public 
questions.  It  was  known  that  in  this  city  there  were  a  great  many  men  who 
did  not  sympathize  with  the  government.  There  were  others  who  were  its  bitter 
enemies.  There  were  others  who  were  zealously  in  its  favor.  There  were  the 
strongest  abolitionists  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  those  who  believed  in 
and  favored  slavery.  Every  grade  and  class  of  political  opinion  and  of  moral 
view  and  religious  notion  existed  in  this  city  when  this  statute  was  passed,  as 
it  does  today,  and  Congress  was  anxious  that  jurors  should  be  so  selected  that 
Avhen  men  came  to  be  tried  in  this  District  they  should  feel  that  they  were  to 
have  a  jury  without  prejudice,  and  a  jury  in  the  selection  of  which  more  than 
one  man  had  been  engaged.  That  they  could  have  a  jury,  after  the  list  had  been 
prepared,  of  the  kind  of  men  that  the  statute  required,  the  strict  provisions  of 
which  I  have  just  read.  Now,  I  appeal  to  your  honor  if,  under  the  evidence 
before  the  court  on  the  demurrer  which  admits  it,  one  single  requisite  has  been 
complied  with.  I  ask  your  honor,  suppose  that  these  men  had  selected  any 
sort  of  men  they  had  pleased,  men  who  were  not  residents,  and,  as  I  before  said, 
men  who  were  negroes,  Avould  that  have  been  a  good  jury  ?  Suppose  the  clerk 
of  the  Senate  and  the  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  had  met  together  to 
select  jurors  and  put  their  names  in  the  box,  and  then  afterwards  the  clerk  had 
drawn  them  out,  would  that  have  been  a  good  selection  of  the  jury  ?  It  would 
have  been  just  as  good  as  this.  It  would  have  been  just  as  strict  a  com- 
pliance with  the  law  as  this  is.  "Why  have  any  law  about  it  ?  Why  not  say, 
"  Let  the  register  and  these  men  go  and  do  as  they  please  about  it."  The  law 
was  made  surely  for  something. 

Let  us  see  what  further  provisions  they  made  to  guard  against  any  fraud  or 
any  partiality  in  relation  to  the  selection  of  a  jury.  "  The  names  selected  from 
said  lists  shall  be  written  on  separate  and  similar  pieces  of  paper,  which  shall 
be  so  folded  or  rolled  up  that  the  names  cannot  be  seen,  and  placed  in  a  box." 
Were  the  names  written  on  these  pieces  of  paper  taken  from  those  lists  ?  Not 
a  name  selected  by  this  board  was  taken  from  these  lists ;  but  these  three  dif- 
ferent persons  selected,  and  neither  ever  let  the  other  know,  as  the  evidence 
shows,  what  he  had  selected.  Not  a  man  knew  any  except  such  as  were  his 
own  ;  and  the  register  of  this  city  did  not  even  know  his  own,  for  his  own  clerk, 
as  he  says  himself,  rolled  up  the  names  and  put  them  in.  "And  they  shall  be 
placed  in  the  box  to  be  provided  by  the  register  and  the  clerks  aforesaid,  which 
box  shall  be  sealed,  and  after  being  thoroughly  shaken  shall  be  delivered  to  the 
clerk  of  the  circuit  court  of  Washington  county  for  safe  keeping."  Let  us  see 
whether  that  part  of  the  law,  under  this  evidence,  was  complied  with.  The 
box  was  not  sealed,  as  the  evidence  shows.  It  was  not  sealed  or  delivered  to 
the  clerk.  That  is  a  very  important  provision.  If  the  box  was  delivered  to  the 
clerk  unsealed,  why,  your  honor  knows,  there  might  be  a  clerk  dishonest — I  do 
not  wish  to  be  understood  as  making  any  such  suggestion  here,  on  the  contrary, 
very  far  from  it — but  there  might  be  a  clerk  or  a  deputy  clerk,  or  some  one 
connected  with  the  office,  who  might  see  fit  to  stuflP  that  box  with  other  names 
for  other  motives ;  and,  therefore,  to  provide  against  this,  it  is  enacted  that  this 
box,  by  these  men  who  compose  this  board,  shall  be  sealed  and  thoroughly 
shaken,  and  after  it  is  thus  sealed  and  thoroughly  shaken  it  shall  be  delivered 
to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court.  The  evidence  is  that  when  this  box  was  de- 
livered to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  it  was  unsealed.  Can  it  be  said  and 
urged  to  your  honor  that  these  men,  intrusted  with  the  performance  of  this 
high  duty,  can  properly  disregard  every  one  of  these  requirements  ?  I  submit 
to  your  honor,  and  will  prove  by  this  evidence  before  I  am  through,  that  from 
the  first  step  they  took  to  the  last  they  did  so  disregard  them.  Not  one  single 
act  did  they  do  that  was  not  in  violation  of  the  statute. 

Nexti  "  that  the  said  register  and  clerks  and  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court 


TRIAL    OF    JOHX   H.    SURRATT.  31 

shall,  at  least  ten  days  before  the  commencement  of  each  term  of  the  circuit  or 
of  the  criminal  court,  meet  at  the  City  Hall  of  Washington  city,  and  then  and 
there  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  shall  publicly  break  the  seal  of  said  box,  and 
proceed  to  draw  therefrom  the  names  of  so  many  persons  as  are  required." 

There  is  another  requisition:  That  these  men,  that  this  board  of  three,  should 
thus  select  the  jurors  and  put  their  names  in  a  box,  seal  it  up  and  deliver  it  to 
the  clerk,  shaken  and  sealed;  and  a  very  important  jirovision  it  is,  as  your  honor 
will  see.  ISuppose,  for  any  bad  motive — no  such  motive  do  I  attribute  in  this 
case,  but  make  the  supposition  simply  as  an  illustration  of  the  point  of  law  that 
I  wish  to  bring-  to  the  attention  of  the  court — suppose,  from  any  motive  of  par- 
tiality or  interest,  one  of  these  gentlemen  forming  the  board  saw  ht,  in  drawing 
from  the  box,  to  draw  names  which  were  in  his  hand  instead  of  the  names  in  the 
box.  The  law  provides  that  he  shall  not  have  that  opportunity  ;  that  he  shall 
not  draw  them,  but  that  the  clerk  of  this  court  shall  draw  the  names.  Now, 
what  is  the  evidence  ?  It  is  that  one  of  this  board,  the  clerk  of  Georgetown, 
drew  the  names,  and  not  the  clerk  of  this  court.  The  clerk  of  Georgetown  had 
no  more  right  to  draw  these  names  than  my  learned  friend,  the  district  attorney; 
and  drawing  them,  he  was  doing  that  which  made  it  an  illegal  draft  of  this  jury, 
directly  contrary  to  the  law.  Law  is  not  supposed  to  be  made  in  folly,  or  in 
nonsense.  Congress  makes  this  solemn  provision  that  these  names  shall  be 
drawn  by  the  clerk,  who  is  not  one  of  the  board,  but  a  totally  different  man, 
after  the  box  containing  the  names  shall  have  been  delivered  to  him,  shaken  and 
sealed  ;  yet  one  of  this  board  draws  the  jury.  That  is  the  evidence  before  us, 
and  uncontradicted. 

Let  us  Bee  what  further  provisions  are  made  in  relation  to  this  matter.  It  was 
evidently  anticipated  by  the  Congress  which  passed  this  law  that  a  contingency 
might  arise  in  which  it  might  become  necessary  to  set  aside  the  array  and  order 
a  new  panel,  and,  in  order  to  meet  that  contingency,  they  have  made  provision 
for  it  in  the  section  which  I  will  now  read;  and  I  will  just  say  that  my  learned 
friend,  in  reading  from  this  case  in  England,  read  what  the  learned  judge  there 
said  in  relation  to  their  law ;  that  their  law  did  not  allow  them  to  go  behind  the 
sheriff  in  relation  to  the  matter,  and  he  gave  as  one  good  reason  why  the  sheriff's 
selection  should  not  be  set  aside,  that  there  was  no  other  earthly  mode  prepared 
in  England  by  which  they  could  proceed  to  the  trial  of  any  case.  My  learned 
friend  read  it  from  the  report,  some  portions  of  which  I  shall  have  occasion,  in  a 
moment  or  two,  to  cite  to  your  honor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  repeat  the  remark  just  made  ?  I 
was  otherwise  engaged  at  the  moment,  and  did  not  hear  it. 

Mr.  PiKRRRPONT.  I  say  that  one  of  the  reasons  that  the  Lord  Chief  Justice 
Tindal  gave  as  a  good  reason  for  setting  aside  the  selection  of  jurors  in  England 
was,  that  if  that  motion  were  granted,  there  would  be  no  mode  by  which  they 
could  get  a  jury  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  causes, 

Mr.  Bradley.  Oh,  yes;  I  now  understand  you. 

Mr.  PiRRREPONT.  Now,  in  our  case  no  such  reason  can  be  assigned.  The 
statute  does  contemplate  just  such  an  emergency,  and  has  made  a  provision  for 
it.  It  provides,  in  section  five,  that  "  if  a  jury  be  required  for  the  circuit  court, 
the  twenty-six  persons  whose  names  shall  first  be  drawn  shall  constitute  the  jury 
for  that  term ;  and  the  names  of  the  persons  drawn  as  aforesaid  shall  not  be 
again  placed  in  such  box  for  a  period  of  two  years.  If  any  person  whose  name 
is  so  drawn  shrJl  have  died,  or  has  removed  from  the  District,  or  has  becDmo 
otherwise  disabled  from  serving  as  a  juror,  the  said  register  and  clerks  shall 
draw  from  the  box  the  name  of  another  person  who  shall  serve  instead  ;  and  after 
the  requisite  number  of  jurors  shall  have  been  so  drawn,  the  said  box  shall  be 
again  sealed  and  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court,  as  aforesaid." 

Immediately  following  that  provision  is  section  7th,  Avhich  says  that  "in  case 
either  of  the  ofiicers  whose  duty  it  is  to  make  out  the  lists  aforesaid  shall  ne- 


32  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

gleet  or  refuse  to  act,  or  in  case  either  of  them  shall  be  interested  in  any  action 
or  proceeding  pending  in  the  said  circuit  or  criminal  court,  the  chief  judge  of  the 
circuit  court  shall  appoint  a  fit  and  proper  person  to  discharge  the  jury  instead; 
and  if  the  persons  selected  as  jurors  do  not  attend,  the  court  may  order  the 
marshal  to  summon  other  respectable  tax  payers,  possessing  the  other  legal 
qualifications,  to  swpply  the  deficiency  ;  but  if  at  any  time  there  should  not  be, 
by  reason  of  challenge  or  otherwise,  a  sufficient  number  of  jurors  to  make  up  the 
panel,  the  court  shall  order  the  marshal  to  summon  as  many  talesmen  as  are 
necessaiy  for  that  purpose." 

Now,  if  the  persons  selected  as  jurors  do  not  attend,  the  court  may  order  the 
marshal  to  summon  other  respectable — what?  "Other  respectable  tax-payers, 
possessing  the  other  legal  qualifications,  to  supply  the  deficiency."  In  the  first 
section  it  states  what  the  legal  qualifications  are — "  to  be  tax-payers,  and  to  pos- 
sess the  other  qualifications."  The  seventh  section  provides  that,  in  case  of 
failure  from  any  cause,  the  court  shall  direct  the  marshal  to  summon  as  tales- 
men other  respectable  tax-payers,  possessing  the  other  legal  requisites ;  and  the 
marshal,  under  the  direction  of  the  court,  shall  thus  prepaie  the  list  of  other  re- 
spectable tax-payers,  &c.  Congress  seemed,  therefore,  determined  that  in  no 
event  should  justice  fail,  and  that  no  such  reason  could  be  given  by  your  honor 
as  was  given  by  Chief  Justice  Tindal,  that  there  could  be  no  other  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding. 

The  thing  is  complete ;  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever  in  the  matter.  Con- 
gress has  provided,  first,  that  it  shall  be  done  in  a  particular  way;  that  a  par- 
ticular kind  of  persons,  and  those  only,  shall  be  the  jurors,  and  that  they  shall 
be  Selected  in  a  certain  manner  and  drawn  in  a  certain  manner ;  and  then,  to 
avoid  the  possibility  of  a  failure  of  justice,  they  say  that,  if  from  challenging  or 
from  a7iy  other  cause,  a  sufficient  number  may  not  be  had,  the  court  shall  order 
the  marshal  to  make  the  selections  from  the  proper  persons  having  the  legal 
qualifications,  so  that  all  these  questions  will  lie  quite  outside  of  this  case,  and 
power  in  the  court  is  complete.  There  is  no  cause  or  reason  for  delay ;  it  may 
])e  done  now  and  forthwith,  and  the  sooner  it  is  done  the  better.  I  take  it  for 
granted  that  my  learned  friends  want  it  to  be  done  soon.  They  want  to  go  ou 
"with  the  case.     We  are  as  anxious  as  they  to  go  on  with  it. 

There  is  one  argument  which  was  made  by  the  gentleman  in  the  early  part 
of  his  remarks  to  which  I  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  court,  and  that  is 
this,  that  if  this  jury  is  an  illegal  jury,  why,  then,  other  men  have  been  convicted 
here  illegally.  He  urged  it  with  much  earnestness,  that  that  was  a  reason,  if 
you  had  been  going  on  in  an  illegal  way,  why  you  should  continue  to  do  so. 
I  think  that,  on  reflection,  my  learned  friend  will  not  consider  that  argument 
sound.  If  you  have  been  doing  illegal  or  immoral  or  any  other  Avrong  acts,  the 
time  to  stop  is  when  you  first  make  the  discovery,  and  not  to  say,  "  We  wall 
continue  it,  because  w^e  have  always  done  it."  Your  honor  knows  when  we 
made  some  attempt  to  civilize  the  Indians,  and  an  Indian  chief  was  reproved 
for  murdering  his  enemies,  and  was  told  that  it  was  unchristian  and  wrong,  he 
said  he  had  always  killed  his  enemies,  and  insisted  that,  therefore,  he  should 
still  kill  them.  An  immoral  woman  of  the  Sandwich  islands,  too,  whom  our 
missionaries  attempted  to  convert  to  virtue  after  marriage,  urged  as  a  reason  for 
continuing  her  mode  of  life,  that  she  had  always  been  so  doing  as  she  was  then. 

My  learned  friend  read  from  page  247,  of  Clark  &  Finnelly's  Reports.  Let 
us  see  what  that  case  was.  The  question  came  up  for  this  judge  to  answer; 
and  the  answer  he  gave  to  the  sixth  question  was — in  England  they  have  a 
statute  upon  the  subject  it  seems ■ 

Mr  Bkauley.  I  beg  your  pardon.  * 

Mr.  Pi  ERR H PONT.  They  have  a  statute  in  England  to  which  he  alludes.  I 
am  coming  to  that  in  a  moment. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  33 

Mr.  Mf.uuick.  I  thouglit  you  stated  that  there  was  a  statute  iu  regard  to  the 
grounds  uijon  which  a  challenge  would  he  allowed. 

Mr.  I'lHRUKPONT.  Oh,  no,  sir;  the  statute  upon  wliich  this  was  based.  The 
answer  of  the  learned  juflge  was:  "the  only  ground  upon  which  the  array  is 
allowed  by  the  Knglish  law  is  the  vnintUjf'creiiruf  or  dtjauit  of  the  s/icrijf.  But 
no  want  of  indifference  in  the  sheriff,  nor  any  default  iu  iiiin  or  his  officers,  was 
assigned  for  the  cause  of  the  challenge  upon  this  occasion." 

That  was  the  end  of  the  case.  It  ought  to  have  been  the  end  of  the  case. 
This  word  "  unindifFerency,"  which  I  see  the  learned  judge  uses  here,  is  cer- 
tainly a  new  word  to  ine — I  never  saw  it  before.  I  suppose,  however,  it  is  a 
good  one. 

3[r.  Mi.hruk    It  is  habitually  used  in  that  connection  throughout  the  law. 

Mr.  PlKRRKPttNT.  1  say  I  suppose  it  is  a  good  word;  but  it  is  not  one  that 
I  am  accustomed  to.  Uf  course,  we  understand  w  hat  it  means.  Now,  the 
only  ground  to  the  challenge  of  the  array  that  is  allowed  by  the  English  law  is 
the  "unindifferency  or  default  of  the  sheriff."  That  being  so,  it  does  not  need 
much  comment.  Ihconlygroundupon  which  the  law  allowed  a  challenge  was  not 
pretended  to  exist,  as  the  learned  judge  said.  Iht-refore  there  was  no  necessity 
for  spending  a  great  deal  of  time  upon  a  case  like  that.  Of  course,  that  would 
end  the  case.  It  did  not  need  so  much  learning  or  argument  as  the  learned  judge 
and  the  lord  chancellor  seem  lo  have  given  to  it  ;  but  from  the  notoriety  of  the 
case,  and  from  the  magnitude  of  the  subject  involved,  which  was  then  made  a 
political  affair,  they  saw  fit  to  give  it  a  great  deal  of  consideration,  and  gave  as 
reasons  why  they  should  not  undertake  to  set  aside  this  panel  the  ftict  that  they 
had  no  possible  way  of  having  justice  administered,  no  other  mode  of  getting  a 
jury.  It  was  not  pretended  in  the  challenge,  as  the  judge  said,  that  the  legal 
ground  and  the  only  legal  ground  upon  which  there  could  be  any  complaint  pre- 
dicated existed.  Therefore,  of  course,  the  motion  was  denied.  And  in  this  case, 
if  there  is  no  ground  for  it,  of  course  the  motion  will  be  denied.  If  there  is 
ground  for  it,  1  take  it  the  motion  will  be  granted.  In  this  case,  we  act  under 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  directly — under  a  statute.  It  is  a  principle  of 
the  common  law,  well  known  and  understood  by  all  lawyers  and  all  men,  per- 
liaps,  that  it  lies  in  the  discretion  of  the  judge  to  construe  the  law ;  it  is  not 
only  in  his  discretion  but  his  duty  to  see  that  the  law  over  which  he  is  called 
to  preside  is  properly  administered.  Your  honor  is  placed  iu  your  high  posi- 
tion in  this  court  for  the  purpose  of  giving  construction  to  this  statute  ;  for  the 
purpose  of  seeing  that  the  laws  of  Congress  relating  to  this  District  and  this 
court  over  which  you  preside  are  executed.  This  is  not  an  mnneaning  statute. 
The  reasons  of  it  are  apparent  upon  its  face,  and  when  Congress  passed  it  it  was 
understood  that  this  statute  was  to  be  obeyed,  and  that  when  a  man  was  to  be 
tried  for  his  life,  or  when  he  was  to  be  tried  for  any  felony,  or  any  lesser  crime 
or  misdemeanoi-,  or  for  anything  else,  the  jurors  who  were  to  try  him  were 
to  be  selected  hy  law,  and  that  no  irregularity,  informality,  or  defect  in  that  se- 
lection should  be  passed  lightly  over  by  the  judge  who  {)resides.  But  it  is  his 
duty  to  see  that  the  law  is  atbninistcred,  if  it  be  called  to  his  notice;  and  if 
the  statute  has  never  before  been  called  to  your  notice,  of  course  your  honor  has 
not  passed  upon  it.  As  I  learn  from  my  associate,  the  district  attorney,  and  as 
1  infer  from  what  the  learned  counsid  on  the  other  side  have  said,  this  question 
has  never  here  arisen  before.  Of  course,  therefore,  it  is  no  man's  fault;  it  has 
not  been  thought  of.  These  men  proceeded  in  their  own  way.  They  thought 
they  would  take  their  way  to  get  a  jury,  instead  of  the  way  of  the  law.  They 
chose  to  tread  in  their  own  path  ;  to  be  a  law  unto  themselves  ;  to  say,"  We  will 
fix  up  a  jury  as  we  please,"  reckless  of  the  law.  It  is  your  honor's  duty  to  see 
that  a  jury  is  selected  iu  the  way  that  the  law  directs,  and  that  is  all  we  ask. 
We  are  ready  now  to  proceed  to  trial ;  we  are  desirous  that  the  trial  shall  be 
3 


34  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

proceeded  with,  and  we  ask  and  urge  that  this  other  provision  of  the  statute  by 
which  your  honor  is  empowered  to  dii'ect  the  marshal  to  summon  a  jury  for  the 
purpose  of  trying  the  cause  shall  be  enforced,  and  that  a  jiuy  shall  be  empan- 
elled, in  order  that  we  may  be  permitted  to  proceed  to  trial  at  the  earliest  day  that 
such  jury  can  be  selected.  And  we  see  no  reason  why  it  may  not  be  to-morrow 
as  well  as  any  distant  day,  so  that  any  so-called  reason  of  delay  is  not  a  reason; 
so  that  any  alleged  reason  of  the  failure  of  justice  is  a  false  reason.  The  statute 
has  provided  for  all  these  things,  and  it  lies  in  your  honor  to  enforce  it ;  and 
when  the  facts  have  been  presented  before  the  court;  when  it  is  shown  that  the 
statute  is  not  complied  with,  and  when  it  appears  that  the  law  has  provided  that 
a  jury  may  be  selected  by  your  honor's  direction  in  case  of  previous  failure,  I, 
for  one,  cannot  for  a  moment  imagine  that  your  honor  will  not  direct  that  the  law 
be  complied  with,  or  that  you  will  allow  subordinates  to  exercise  their  own  whims 
or  notions,  to  set  aside  the  solemn  statute  of  the  law. 

This  is  a  case  such  as  your  honor  has  never  tried,  such  as  your  honor  never 
will  again  try  ;  such  as  has  never  been  before  tried  in  this  country,  and  such, 
we  hope,  as  never  will  be  tried  again.  It  is  the  first  civil  trial  for  the  murder  of 
a  President  of  the  United  States  ;  the  first  civil  trial  for  the  great  crime  of  an 
attempt  to  destroy  the  government  of  the  United  States;  one  of  that  class 
of  crimes  which  shock  the  whole  world.  Many  people  Avho  despaired  of  the 
republic  have  doubts  whether  you  can,  before  a  civil  tribunal,  obtain  a  just  and 
honest  trial,  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict  in  a  great  case  like  this.  Therefore 
this  case  possesses  a  weight  and  magnitude  such  as  purely  no  other  case  in 
this  country  ever  had.  It  is  in  fact  not  simply  the  trial  of  a  man  for  his  life ; 
it  is  in  a  measure  a  trial  whether  we  can  get  a  jury  legally  empanelled  to  try 
assassins  and  murderers  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who  attempted 
to  throw  our  country  into  confusion  and  anarchy,  and  who  designed  all  the  hor- 
rors to  follow  their  act  which  the  human  mind  can  conceive.  It  is  to  be  seen 
whether  such  trial  can  be  fair,  whether  justice  can  be  done.  All  of  us  who  have 
read  anything  of  history  or  who  have  reflected  upon  human  nature,  know  that 
civil  society  will  protect  itself.  They  know,  if  the  civil  courts  and  the  verdicts 
of  juries  cannot  administer  justice,  that  society,  as  in  France  and  in  other  coun- 
tries where  the  necessity  has  arisen,  will  be  driven  to  take  refuge  in  the  gloomy 
despotism  of  military  power.  God  deliver  us  from  that !  we  want  to  show 
before  our  countrymen  and  before  the  world,  that  an  honest  jury  of  this  District 
will  give  an  honest  verdict ;  that  we  can  have  a  fair  trial  before  an  impartial 
court;  and  we  believe  that  when  the  jury  thus  selected  are  brought  together  to 
try  the  cause,  they  will  give  a  verdict  with  which  our  countrymen  will  be  satis- 
fied— and  that  is  all  we  want. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  your  honor  please,  I  know  no  case  in  which  it  has  been  my 
fortune  to  be  engaged  heretofore  in  which  I  rose  to  discuss  a  question  of  law 
with  deeper  interest  than  I  feel  now.  The  temptation  is  very  great  to  be  led  away 
from  the  true  question  submitted  to  your  honor  for  your  decision,  and  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly difiicult  to  resist  following  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  upon 
the  other  side  by  discussing,  not  questions  of  law,  but  by  presenting  considera- 
tions to  the  court  which  should  have  no  influence  upon  any  judicial  mind. 

We  are  told  that  a  jury  is  to  be  empanelled  to  try  the  assassm  of  the  Presi- 
dent. It  would  have  been  better  to  have  said  him  who  has  been  charged  with 
being  concerned  in  that  monstrous  crime. 

Mr.  PiBRREPONT.  Excuse  me;  I  think  my  learned  friend  could  not  have 
heard  all  the  language  I  used.     I  said,  as  found  by  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  observation  escaped  my  attention.  There  are,  if  the  court 
please,  other  inducements  which  are  hard  to  resist,  that  lead  me  to  make  some 
commentaries  upon  the  course  pursued  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  ;  but  time 
is  too  precious,  for  I  desire  to  have  this  discussion  closed  in  time  to  receive  the 
decision  of  your  honor  to-day,  that  if  this  motion  is  overruled  and  the  demurrer 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  35 

sustained  we  may  at  once  proceed  to  impanel  a  jury,  and  if  it  is  not  and  thoi-e  is 
any  other  movement  of  delay  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  that  wo  may  be  pre- 
pared to  meet  every  dilatory  process  as  soon  as  it  arises.  We  are  in  earnest, 
we  desire  to  have  this  party  ti'ied  now,  we  desire  to  have  him  tried  by  a  jury 
omni  exceptione.  mnjores,  against  whom  not  a  breath  has  been  uttered  by  any 
counsel  who  has  addressed  the  court  since  the  commencement  of  these  proceed- 
ings, by  a  jury  empanelled  according  to  the  form  of  law  which  has  prevailed 
since  the  passage  of  the  act  under  which  it  is  empanelled — a  jury  above  challenge 
for  qualification — a  jury  conceded  to  have  been  selected  by  honest  men  with 
honest  ])urposes,  without  reference  to  this  trial — a  jury  standing,  if  a  jury  can 
stand,  impartial  in  view  of  such  an  event  as  has  been  referred  to — a  jury  standing 
impartial  between  the  govcrinneut  and  the  accused.  We  desii-e  that  th(!  inten- 
tion of  the  act  of  Congress  shall  be  carried  out,  which  Avas  to  take  from  the 
marshal  of  this  District  the  power  to  select  jurors  ;  we  desire,  if  possible,  to 
avoid  the  selection  which  may  be  made  of  talesmen,  for  Ave  know  too  well  the 
conilition  of  society  here  ;  we  desire  to  have  such  a  jury  as  has  been  impanelled 
under  the  circumstances  in  which  this  jury  has  been  summoned,  admitted  to  be 
free  from  all  exception. 

Rut  again  I  take  issue  with  my  learned  friend  on  the  other  side.  We  desire 
to  have  a  jury  that  can  try  the  case  now  ;  for  if  we  do  not  try  it  now,  no  jury 
under  that  statute  can  be  summoned  or  returned  until  next  February.  The 
condition  in  which  the  marshal  is  to  be  called  in  to  summon  talesmen  cannot 
arise,  because  there  has  been  no  panel  returned,  and  therefore  no  panel  can  be 
exhausted,  and  until  a  panel  has  been  returned  and  has  been  exhausted 
by  some  process  of  law,  the  authority  of  the  marshal  to  summon  tales- 
men is  out  of  the  question.  The  predicate  is  that  a  panel  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted. If  there  is  no  panel,  there  is  no  predicate,  and  if  that  is  no  predicate, 
the  marshal  cannot  summon.  We  are  sincere,  if  your  honor  please,  in  endea- 
voring to  bring  this  question  to  an  issue  now.  Our  brethren  claim  and  we 
accord  to  them  the  same  sincerity.  We  may  have  done  them  injustice  in  sup- 
posing this  was  interposed  for  delay;  we  may  have  done  them  injustice  in  sup- 
posing that  at  this  late  stage  of  the  term  and  after  so  many  years  of  experience 
this  process  of  selecting  a  jury  was  first  discovered  to  be  wrong.  I  hope  we  did. 
But  there  is  a  graver  view  uf  this  question  which  has  not  been  touched  by  the 
counsel  on  the  other  side,  nor  by  my  learned  brother  who  preceded  me.  We 
have  been  told  that  it  is  an  obligation  of  common  law  that  the  courts  shall  en- 
force statutory  provisions  ;  but  there  is  a  higher  and  a  holier  duty,  that  courts  shall 
not  make  law.  The  counsel  on  the  other  side  seek  b}'  this  motion  to  prevail  upon 
your  honor  to  make  a  law.  We  have  no  statute  upon  the  subject  of  challenging 
the  ai'ray.  We  stand  upon  the  common  law  of  England,  the  common  law  of  the 
State  of  Maryland,  the  common  law  engrafted  upon  the  laws  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  the  common  law  which  must  stand  unless  repealed  or  modified  by 
the  statute,  common  law  which  is  as  binding  upon  the  judgment  and  conscience 
of  this  court  as  though  it  were  statute  law.  Now,  sir,  what  is  that  common 
law  ?  Can  any  man,  lawyer  or  not,  doubt  what  that  common  law  is  when  be 
reads  or  has  heard  read  the  case  of  O'Oonnell  and  the  Queen  ?  Can  any  man 
doubt  that  by  the  common  law  of  England,  the  only  challenge  to  the  array  was 
for  default  in  the  man  charged  with  the  summoning  ofthe  jury  ?  The  prepara- 
tion of  the  list  of  jurors  was  not  cause  of  challenge.  If  any  case  can  bring 
this  case  directly  to  judicial  decision,  that  case  of  O'Connell  does.  There 
was  fraud  and  illegality  charged  directly  upon  the  party  making  out  the  jury 
book,  which  was  admitted  on  the  record  as  being  fraudulent  and  illegal,  and  the 
courts  say  in  such  a  case  as  that  there  is  no  such  remedy  as  a  challenge  of  the 
array.  They  say  admit  that  it  sounds  harsh  and  tyrannical  :  what  of  that  ? 
It  is  the  law  of  the  land,  and  they  go  back  to  the  year  books  of  Edward  II  and 
Edward  III  where  it  was  laid  down  by  Lord  Cook  that  the  challenge  to  the 


36  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

array  cannot  be  allowed,  exce])t  for  partiali'y  in  the  person  snramoning  the  jury. 
Whether  there  are  other  remedies  or  not  is  not  for  me  to  say.  Whether  there 
are  other  remedies  which  in  this  instance  the  United  States  might  have  pursued 
is  not  for  me  to  say.  1  say  it  is  laid  down  by  that  highest  and  greatest  court  of 
the  present  time,  a  court  composed  of  the  fitteen  judges  of  England,  that  by  the 
common  law  a  challenge  to  the  array  can  only  go  to  tlie  disqualification  of  the 
officer  making  the  summons  and  return.  Ko  human  ingenuity  can  escape  the 
conclusion  of  that  case.  Argument  is  vain.  It  is  like  buffeting  the  light  waves 
against  a  great  rock,  ii  falls  back  in  spray.  There  is  the  solid  basis,  the  deci- 
sion of  the  fifteen  judges  of  England,  the  most  solid  basis  upon  which  we  can 
rest  the  principles  of  our  lih<'rty,  the  commou  law  of  England.  It  comes  to  us 
under  that  rule  thus  strict,  thus  limited,  thus  defined,  hoary  with  age,  baptized 
in  our  own  revolution,  the  common  law  of  England. 

Now,  for  the  purposes  of  this  case  your  honor  is  asked  to  make  a  new  commou 
law.  I  appeal  to  your  honor  to  vindicate  the  common  law  of  England,  and  to 
enforce  it. 

Now,  sir,  I  pass  from  that  to  another  consideration.  When  this  question  was 
proposed  yesterday  I  conceded  that  the  defendant  in  this  case,  according  to  the 
current  of  decisions,  could  not  waive  a  defect  in  the  empanelling  of  the  jury. 
I  stated,  however,  that  I  had  seen  two  well-reasoned  decisions  the  other  way. 
I  have  since  then  seen  four,  and,  unless  the  defect  appear  upon  the  record  of  the 
case,  or  unless  it  shall  clearly  appear  that  the  party  did  not  know  of  the  dis- 
qualification or  defect,  he  is  as  completely  concluded  as  though  it  were  a  civil 
case,  and  he  had,  in  form,  waived  tliat  right  the  waiver  is  conclusive,  and  I  refer 
my  learned  brothers  upon  this  point  to  a  case  in  seventh  Wendell — with  which 
one  of  them  at  least,  Mr.  Pierrepont,  is  perfectly  familiar — in  which  a  man  in 
a  capital  case  moved  for  a  new  trial  on  the  ground  of  irregularity  in  empanelling 
the  jury.  The  case  is  found  on  page  421.  1  read  from  the  opinion  of  the  court : 
■  "  The  revised  statutes  provide  that  a  jury  for  the  trial  of  an  indictment  shall 
be  drawn  in  the  same  manner  as  is  prescribed  by  law  for  the  trial  of  issues 
of  fact  in  civil  cases,  (2  Rev.  Stats.,  734,  735;)  and  in  civil  cases  where  there 
is  not  a  jury  empanelled  in  another  cause  the  statute  directs  that  the  ballots 
containing  all  the  names  of  the  jurors  returned  and  appearing  at  such  court, 
shall  be  placed  together  in  the  same  box  before  any  jury  shall  be  drawn  there- 
from, (2  Rev.  Stats.,  421,  §64.)  Here,  the  ballot  containing  the  name  of  Smith 
not  having  been  placed  in  the  box  before  the  drawing  of  the  jury  commenced, 
it  is  said  the  statute  was  violated,  and  the  prisoner  is  entitled  to  a  new  trial." 

The  language  is  so  distinct  that  no  one  can  fail  to  understand  it,  yet  the 
requiiemsut  was  departed  from  in  this  case,  and  this  a  capital  case.  I  read 
further  from  the  opinion  : 

"  We  have  several  times  had  occasion  to  consider  the  effect  of  an  ommission 
on  the  part  of  the  officer  whose  duty  it  is  to  draw  and  empanel  jurors  to  conform 
to  the  precise  regulations  prescribed  by  law  in  that  respect,  and  we  have  uni- 
formly held  that  this  statute,  like  many  others  of  a  similar  character,  is  to  be 
considered  as  directory  to  the  officers  merely,  and  that  a  neglect  to  conform  to 
its  provisions  will  not  j^er  se  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  setting  aside  the  verdict 
of  such  jury  where  the  court  sees  that  the  party  cannot  have  been  prejudiced 
by  it,  (5  Cowan,  289.     7  Id.,  232.") 

Now,  I  would  like  to  know  how  a  party  would  be  prejudiced  by  trying  his 
case  before  this  jury,  but,  if  your  honor  please,  I  can  see  how  he  can  be  preju- 
diced by  summoning  talesmen  to  supply  their  places.     I  read  further  : 

"  Th«  59th  section  of  the  same  act  (2d  Rev.  Stats.,  420,)  provides  that  the 
clerk  ot  the  court  shall  cause  the  names  of  the  several  persons  r(  ferred  as  jurors 
by  the  bheriff,  with  their  respective  additions  and  places  of  residence,  to  be 
written  on  several  and  distinct  pieces  of  paper,  each  in  the  same  manner,  as  near 
as  may  be,  and  so  as  to  resemble  each  other  as  much  as  possible,  and  so  that 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  37 

the  names  written  tlieveon  shall  not  be  visible.  In  Cole  and  Pony,  (6  Cowan, 
584,)  a  motion  was  made  to  set  aside  a  verdict  on  the  ground  that  the  ballots 
coQtaining  the  names  of  the  jurors  were  not  folded  at  all,  but  were  put  open  into 
the  box,  in  such  manner  that,  the  names  might  easily  have  been  seen  by  the 
person  drawing  them.  On  the  other  hand  the  atfidavit  of  the  clerk  who  drew 
the  jury  was  produced,  stating  distinctly  that  he  did  not  see  the  names  of  the 
jury  until  after  they  were  drawn.  The  motion  was  denied  on  the  ground  that 
the  statute  was  directory  merely  to  the  otiicer  drawing  the  ballots,  and  that  the 
mistake  of  the  officer  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  was  not  a  ground  for  setting 
aside  the  proceedings  where  no  injury  to  the  party  complaining  was  shown  or 
pretended.  The  principle  of  this  case  is  believed  to  be  fully  sanctioned  by  a 
great  variety  of  decisions  in  our  own  and  the  English  courts." 

Again,  on  page  424,  he  uses  this  language : 

"  The  conclusion  from  these  cases  appears  to  me  to  be  this  :  that  any  mere 
informality  or  mist  tke  of  any  officer  in  drawing  a  jnry,  or  any  irregularity  or 
misconduct  in  the  jurors  themselves,  will  not  be  a  sufficient  ground  for  setting 
aside  a  verdict,  either  in  a  criminal  or  civil  case,  where  the  court  are  satisfied 
that  the  party  complaining  has  not  or  could  not  have  sustained  any  injury 
from  it." 

Again,  on  pagp*  426  : 

"  The  case  of  King  vs.  Hunt,  (4  Barn  and  Aid.,  430,)  bears  a  strong  analogy 
to  the  case  at  bar.  That  was  the  case  of  an  information  for  a  libel,  before  a 
special  jury.  Ten  of  the  special  jury  attended,  and  two  talesmen  were  sworn, 
and  the  defendant  was  convicted.  He  moved  for  a  new  trial  on  the  ground 
that  the  officer  had  omitted  to  summon  the  two  special  jurymen  who  had  not 
attended,  and  it  was  contended  that  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  all  should 
be  summoned  ;  that  the  act  of  parlaiment  was  imperative,  for  it  required  all  to 
be  summoned,  and  if  two  were  omitted,  so  might  any  other  number.  But  the 
court  unanimously  refused  the  motion,  saying  that  it  would  be  an  alarming 
principle  to  establish  that  a  verdict  could  be  set  aside  because  the  sheriff  had 
omitted  to  summon  one  juryman  out  of  the  whole  panel;  that  applications  of 
this  sort  were  addressed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  that  if  the  officer  had 
not  done  his  duty  he  might  be  punished  for  it,  and  if  his  omission  has  actually 
produced  prejudice  to  the  party,  then  the  court  might,  in  its  discretion,  prevent 
injustice  from  being  done  by  granting  a  new  trial.  In  that  case,  the  omission 
had  not  been  shown  to  have  bren  prejudicial  to  the  defendant  and  therefore  the 
motion  was  refused.  This,  I  apprehend,  is  the  true  rule  to  be  collected  from  all 
the  cases  " 

He  then  reviews  the  case  of  The  People  ?'.?.  McKay,  which  was  a  capital  case, 
and  in  which  the  defendant  was  convicted  of  murder. 

"  He  was  then  brought  into  this  court  by  habeas  corpus,  and  the  indictment 
and  proceedings  against  him  in  the  court  of  oyer  and  terminer,  were  also  re- 
turned in  obedience  to  a  certiorari,  directed  for  that  purpose.  Upon  the  papers 
thus  before  the  court,  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  moved  an  arrest  of  judgment 
on  the  ground  that  no  venire  had  been  issued  to  surarnou  the  petit  jnry,  and 
it  appeared  that  the  venire  issued  was  not  under  the  seal  of  the  court,  and  that 
no  official  return  had  been  made  to  it  by  the  sheriff.  It  was  admitted  by  the 
counsel  for  the  people  that  the  case  stood  precisely  as  though  no  venire  had 
been  issued,  it  having  no  seal  and  was,  therefore,  absolutely  void,  but  they  con- 
tended that  no  venire  was  necessary.  The  only  judgment  then  was  whether 
the  judgment  could  be  sustained  when  the  record  showed  that  no  venire  had 
been  issued." 

Judge  Spencer  says  :  "  Inasmuch,  then,  as  the  venire  was  necessary  at  the  com- 
mon law,  and  as  the  statute  yet  requires  it  to  be  issued,  the  omi-ssion  to  issue  it  we 
must  consider  an  error  apparent  on  the  record,  and  in  such  a  case,  affecting  life,  we 
do  not  feel  ourselves  authorized   to  dispense   with   a  jjrocess  required  by  the 


38  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

commou  law,  and  also  l»y  tlie  statute,  altbougli  we  may  not  be  able  to  perceive 
much  use  iu  continuing  it."  The  decision  proceeded  on  the  ground  that  the 
error  was  apparent  on  the  record,  and  the  court  conld  not  disregard  it. 

I  might  refer  your  honor  to  other  cases  equally  in  point,  but  these  are  suffi- 
cient for  my  purposes.  I  therefore  say,  if  the  court  please,  that  there  is  no 
error  apparent  on  the  record  of  the  court  in  this  case.  There  is  no  error  show- 
ing any  irregularity  in  making  out  these  list?,  in  preparing  the  jury-box,  in 
opening  tbe  jury-box,  in  drawing  tlie  jurors,  there  is  no  error  of  record,  and  if 
the  case  should  go  to  trial  advertised  as  the  defendant  has  been  by  the  pro- 
ceedings now  under  consideration,  he  would  be  bound  by  that  verdict  as  effect- 
ually as  if  every  form  of  law  had  been  complied  with.  There  is  no  reason, 
then,  of  public  justice;  there  is  no  reason  of  public  sentiment,  lor  that  has 
been  invoked ;  there  is  no  reasv)n  affecting  the  public  at  large  which  could 
make  a  change  in  this  case  from  the  ordinary  course  of  proceedings  since  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1862  necessary  or  proper,  but  there  is  eveiy  inducement 
which  can  operate  upon  the  mind  or  conscience  of  the  judge  to  continue  this 
trial  now  with  this  free,  unembarrassed,  impartial  jury,  and  of  not  submitting 
the  defendant  to  all  the  disadvantages  which  the  act  of  Congress  was  intended 
to  remove  and  subject  the  defendant  to  trial  by  a  jury  which  is  denounced  by 
the  act  of  Congress  itself. 

Now,  if  your  honor  please,  a  word  only  as  to  the  construction  of  this  statute. 

Mr.  PiKKREPOiXT.  I  understood  you  to  argue  that  in  England  there  was  no 
statvite  having  any  effect  upon  the  empanelling  of  the  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  so  understood  you. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  I  stated  was,  that  there  is  no  statute  iu  England 
touching  the  question  of  a  challenge  to  an  array. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  so  Understood  you.  That  is  the  very  point  to  which  I 
wish  to  call  your  attention.  I  do  so  because  I  supposed  you  would  desii'e  to 
answer  it.  If  you  will  turn  to  Chitty's  Criminal  Law,  page  537,  you  will  find 
challenges  are  of  two  kinds  : 

"  Challenges  for  cause  are  of  two  kinds  :  1st.  To  the  whole  array.  2d.  To 
individual  jurymen.  To  challenge  the  array  is  to  except  at  once  to  all  the 
jurors  in  the  panel  on  account  of  some  original  defect  in  making  the  return  to 
tbe  venire." 

Mr.  Bradley.  Now,  if  the  court  please,  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  the  gen- 
tleman for  furnishing  me  with  that.  Now,  if  the  gentleman  will  find  me  a  statute 
authorizing  it,  I  will  be  obliged. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.   If  you  will  turn  over  a  page  or  so  you  will  find  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  turn  to  that  directly.  That  is  the  commou  law.  If 
your  honor  will  turn  back  to  the  time  of  second  and  third  Edwards,  to  the  "  Year 
books,"  you  will  find  that  it  was  common  law  then.     Now  I  proceed,  sir  : 

"  It  is  either  a  principal  challenge  or  for  favor,  the  former  of  which  is  founded 
on  some  manifest  partiality,  and  is  therefore  decisive,  while  the  grounds  of  the 
latter  are  less  certain,  and  left  to  the  determination  of  triers  iu  the  manner  we 
shall  state  hereafter.  The  legitimate  causes  of  a  principal  challenge  are  not 
very  numei'ous.  Thus,  if  the  sheriff  be  actually  prosecutor,  or  the  party 
aggrieved,  the  array  may  be  challenged,  though  no  objection  can  be  taken  in 
arrest  of  judgment.  So,  if  the  sheriff  be  of  actual  atfiuity  to  either  of  the 
parties,  and  the  relationship  be  existing  at  the  time  of  the  return — if  he  return 
any  individual  at  the  request  of  the  prosecutor  or  the  defendant,  or  any  person 
he  believes  to  be  more  favorable  to  one  side  than  to  the  other — if  an  action  of 
battery  be  depending  between  the  sheriff  and  the  defendant,  or  if  the  latter 
have  an  action  of  debt  against  the  former — the  array  may  be  quashed  on  the 
presumption  of  partiality  iu  the  officer.     So,  also,  if  the  sheriff,  or  his   bailiff 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  39 

who  makes  the  return,  is  undin-  the  distress  of  the  party  indicted,  or  indicted,  or 
has  any  pecuniary  interest  in  tlie  event,  or  his  counsel,  attorney,  servant,  or  arhi- 
trator,  in  the  same  cause,  a  principal  challenge  will  be  admitted.  And,  in 
general,  the  same  reasons  which  we  have  already  seen  would  cause  it  to  he 
directed  to  the  coroners  or  elisors,  will  also  be  sufficient  to  quash  the  array 
when  partiality  may  reasonably  be  suspected.  For  all  these  causes  of  sus- 
picion the  king  may  challenge  as  well  as  the  defendant." 

Every  one  of  these  are  cases  personally  afPecting  the  sheriff — every  one   of 
them.     Now,  we  go  a  step  further  : 

"  But  besides  these,  the  default  of  the  sheriff  will  be  sometimes  a  ground  of 
principal  challenge  to  the  array.  Thus,  if  the  array  be  returned  by  the  bailiff 
of  a  franchise,  and  the  sheriff  return  it  as  from  himself,  the  return  will  be  bad, 
because  the  party  will  lose  his  challenge,  though  if  the  sheriff  return  one  from 
the  liberty,  it  will  suffice,  and  the  lord  of  the  franchise  will  be  compelled  to 
resort  to  his  action  against  him." 

Was  not  that  the  default  of  the  sheriff?  Was  it  not  charged  against  him  that 
he  had  failed  to  discharge  his  duty,  and  summoned  the  commoners,  when  he 
was  bound  to  summon  the  knights  i  It  was  the  default  of  the  sheriff — his  per- 
sonal misconduct — all  of  them  looking  to  the  default  or  misconduct  of  the  re- 
turning officer. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Bradley,  does  the  default  direct  itself  to  the  summoning 
power  of  the  sheriff,  or  to  the  selecting  power  of  that  officer  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  To  the  summoning  power.  It  refers  to  both,  your  honor,  but 
it  must  be  the  act  of  the  sheriff.  There  is  a  middle  stage,  sir,  and  there  is  where 
we  are  to  go.  The  sheriff  is  the  only  party  who  is  responsible  at  the  common 
law,  and  the  statute  has  failed  to  provide  a  remedy  under  the  new  act  of  Con- 
gress. In  England,  in  the  case  of  O'Connell  and  the  Queen,  the  statute  pro- 
vided the  mode  of  selecting  and  making  up  the  jury  book,  and  the  whole  duty 
of  the  sheriff  was  to  select  jurors  out  of  that  book.  There  was  no  charge  of  mis- 
conduct against  the  sheriff,  and  while  all  the  anterior  proceedings  were  declared 
to  be  illegal,  yet  the  court  says,  "You  charge  nothing  against  the  sheriff  in 
making  his  return,"  and  unless  you  do,  this  form  of  redress  cannot  avail  you. 
The  court  say  they  may  have  a  remedy,  but  the  question  is  as  to  the  form  of 
the  remedy.  I  need  not  say  to  this  honorable  court  that  the  forms  of  the  law 
are  as  much  of  the  substance  of  the  law  as  the  law  itself.  The  forms  of  the 
remedies  to  which  men  resort  are  just  as  binding  upon  them  as  the  highest  statu- 
tory obligations.  Courts  are  bound  by  the  forms  which  men  adopt  and  deter- 
mine according  to  the  law  respecting  those  forms.  My  attention  is  called  to  the 
passage  from  the  opinion  ot  the  Chief  Justice  in  that  case: 

"The  sheriff,  therefore,  being  neither  unindifferent  nor  in  default,  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  the  challenge  to  the  array  is  given  by  law  does  not  apply  to 
the  present  case." 

The  statute  has,  in  fact,  taken  from  the  shei'iff  that  duty  of  selecting  jurymen 
which  the  ancient  law  imposed  upon  him,  and  has  substituted  instead  a  new  ma- 
chinery, in  the  hands  of  certain  officers,  by  whom  the  list  is  to  be  prepared  for 
the  sheriff's  use. 

If  the  sheriff,  when  the  jurors'  book  was  furnished  to  him,  had  acted  improp 
erly  in  selecting  the  names  of  the  jury  from  the  book,  such  misconduct  would 
have  been  a  good  cause  of  challenge  to  the  array. 

"But  that  which  is  really  coin})lained  of  is,  that  the  material  of  the  book  out 
of  which  the  jury  is  selected  by  the  sheriff,  and  for  which  the  sheriff  is  not  re- 
sponsible,-has  been  improperly  composed.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  ground  of 
challenge  to  the  array.  And  further,  it  is  manifest  that  no  object  or  advantage 
could  have  been  gained  if  the  challenge  had  been  allowed ;  for  if  the  challenge 
had  been  allowed  the  jury  process  would  have  been  directed  to  some  other 


40  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT. 

officer,  Avbo  would  have  been  obliged  to  choose  his  jury  out.  of  the  very  same 
special  jurors'  book  as  that  which  the  sherifF  had  acted  on,  for  no  other  was  in 
existence.  The  same  objection  might  again  be  made  to  the  jury  panel  secondly 
returned,  and  so  tofies  quoties ;  so  that  the  granting  of  this  challenge  wouhi,  in 
effect,  amount  to  the  preventing  the  case  from  being  brought  to  trial  at  all. 
The  very  same  difficulty  might  occur  in  England,  if,  through  accident,  careless- 
ness, or  design,  a  single  jury  list,  directed  to  be  returned  by  the  overseers  of 
any  parish  within  the  county,  were  not  handed  over  to  the  clerk  of  the  peace, 
or  if  a  single  name  should  have  been  omitted  in  any  list  actually  delivered  to 
the  clerk  of  the  peace.  The  jury  book  must  necessarily,  in  either  case,  be  de- 
ficiently made  up.  But  if  such  deficiency  were  allowed  to  be  a  ground  of  chal- 
lenge to  the  array,  the  business  of  every  assize  in  the  kingdom  might  effectually 
be  stopped.  That  there  must  be  some  mode  of  relief  for  an  injury  cocasioned 
by  such  non-observance  of  the  directions  of  an  act  of  Parliament,  is  uncdeniable 
but  the  only  question  before  us-is,  whether  it  is  the  ground  of  challenge  to  the 
array ;  and  we  all  agree  in  thinking  it  is  not,  and  therefore  we  answer  this 
question  in  the  negative." 

That  is  what  we  complain  of. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  We  make  no  complaint  of  the  sheriff.  His  duty  is  simply 
ministerial. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  ground  of  challenge  to  the  array  that 
they  do  complain  of. 

The  fifteen  judges  in  England  say  that  is  no  ground  of  complaint.  The 
learned  gentlemen  here  say  it  is  ground  of  complaint.  They  say  it  is  true  thi?t 
they  make  no  complaint  of  the  sheriff  or  marshal,  because  he  is  only  performing 
a  ministerial  duty,  but  they  go  back  to  the  material  out  of  which  the  list  is  made, 
and  the  court — the  fifteen  judges — say  that  it  is  not  ground  of  complaint.  I 
admit  that  my  learned  friend  on  the  other  side  has  argued  this  case  with  great 
ability,  but  I  take  the  opinion  of  these  fifteen  judges  in  preference  to  his  argu- 
ment. These  judges,  I  repeat,  say  that  it  is  not  ground  of  complaint,  while  my 
learned  friend  says  it  is  ground  of  complaint. 

Then,  if  your  honor  please,  if  I  am  right  in  my  reading  of  these  books — that 
where  the  cause  of  complaint  does  not  exist  upon  the  record,  and  a  man  is  tried 
for  his  life,  he  cannot  take  advantage  of  that  defect  after  his  trial,  except  upon 
clear  proof  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  defect  at  the  time  of  the  trial.  If  I  am 
right  in  that,  then  I  say  they  may  proceed  to  trial  at  once.  The  defendant,  as 
he  has  the  right  to  do,  waives  the  objection,  notwithstanding  the  great  value  put 
upon  the  life  of  an  "assassin." 

Now,  if  the  court  please.  I  will  proceed  one  step  further,  and  I  have  already 
occupied  much  more  time  than  I  allowed  myself.  In  illustrating  this  law,  my 
learned  brother  says  :  "  Suppose  this  board  — we  will  call  them  a  board,  though  they 
seem  to  be  a  very  soft  kind  of  board  from  what  I  can  understand  from  the  other 
side,  that  they  did  not  discharge  their  duty  any  better — suppose  this  board  had 
selected  a  panel  of  black  men,  and  the  panel  had  come  in,  all  woolly- headed 
Africans — well,  it  would  not  be  agreeable  to  me  I  admit — but  is  there  no  remedy  ? 
The  remedy  is  not  by  challenging  the  array.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  on  that 
point. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  It  would  not  be  the  sheriffs  fault? 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  would  not  be  the  sheriffs  fault,  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  to 
challenge  the  array.  But  there  would  soon  be  found  an  entire  remedy — very 
Boon.  Suppose  they  are  not  tax  payers,  and  they  challenge  the  array,  and 
bring  in  their  evidence  to  prove  the  fact  that  they  are  not  tax-payers.  There  is 
no  fault  on  the  part  of  the  marshal,  and,  therefore,  they  cannot  challenge  the 
array  by  any  process  known  to  the  English  and.  the  American  common  law. 
They  may  have  one,  and  another  remedy,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  have 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    IT.    SURRATT.  41 

the  remedy  of  the  challenge  of  the  array;  and  there  is  the  mi8take,  the  fatal 
mistake  on  the  other  side. 

Bat  suppose,  if  your  honor  pleaso,  that  tlii.s  motion  prevail,  what  then?  Tlic 
learned  gentleman,  taking  up  this  statute,  reads  as  follows  : 

"SECTroN  5  *  *  *  But  in  a  capital  case,  where  the  said  panel  shall  have 
been  exhausted  by  reason  of  challenge  or  otherwise,  the  court  before  whom  such 
capital  case  is  pending  may,  in  its  discretion,  order  additional  names  to  be  drawn  ; 
and  if  all  the  names  in  tiie  box  shall  have  been  drawn  out  and  no  jury  found, 
the  court  may  order  the  marshal  to  summon  talesmen  until  a  jury  shall  be  found." 

And,  again : 

"Section  7.  *  *  *  And  if  at  any  time  there  should  not  be,  by  reason 
of  challenge  or  otherwise,  a  sufficient  number  of  jurors  to  make  up  the  panel, 
the  court  shall  order  the  marshal  to  summon  as  many  talesmen  as  are  necessary 
for  that  purpose." 

Persons  selected  as  jurors  having  the  same  qualifications 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Tax-payers,  and  having  the  other  qualifications. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir;  but  that  is  not  all.  I  will  read  the  language  of  the 
statute: 

"And  if  the  persons  selected  as  jurors  do  not  attend,  the  court  may  order  the 
marshal  to  summon  other  respectable  tax-payers,  possessing  the  other  legal 
qualifications,  to  supply  the  deficiency." 

After  reading  these  sections,  the  gentleman  turns  back  to  the  first,  and  says 
"tax-payers"  is  used  there;  "white  male  citizens"  is  also  used  there.  He  did 
not,  however,  read  to  your  honor  the  eighth  section,  which  prescribes  the  qualifi- 
cations of  jurors.     What  are  they  ? 

"  That  no  person  shall  be  competent  to  act  as  a  Juror  unless  he  be  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  a  resident  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  over  twenty-one  and 
under  sixty-five  years  of  age,  a  good  and  lawful  man  who  has  never  been  con- 
victed of  a  felony  or  misdemeanor  involving  moral  turpitude." 

Now,  the  previous  sections  require  that  he  should  be  a  tax-payer  also,  and  I 
ask  my  learned  friend  to  show  me  where  it  says  he  shall  be  a  "white  man." 
Have  I  not  a  right  then  to  resist  this  motion?  Is  there  not  every  inducement 
which  a  white  man  can  have  to  resist  it  1 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  will  find  the  term  "white  male  citizen"  in  the  sev- 
enth line  of  the  first  section. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Oh  !  I  know,  but  that  is  when  the  jury  is  to  be  listed.  When 
the  register  of  the  city  of  Washington,  the  clerks  of  Georgetown,  and  the 
county,  are  to  make  out  their  lists  they  are  limited  to  white  men. 

The  District  Attorney.  Does  not  that  define  the  description  of  persons? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes  ;  but  when  the  marshal  goes  to  summon  talesmen,  how  is 
it  ?  The  statute  simply  says  "  must  be  tax-payers,  and  possess  the  other  legal 
qualifications." 

Mr.  Pierrepo.nt.  The  first  section  speaks  of  certain  qualifications. 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir;  those  are  exactions,  req^uired  when  the  lists  are  be- 
ing made  out,  not  qualifications. 

I  think  I  can  see  where  this  thing  is  drifting.  It  is  not  delay  that  is  sought, 
but  they  have  another  motive  more  powerful  than  delay.  It  is  to  get  another 
jury  in  the  place  of  an  honest  jury  already  summoned.  Why,  sir,  the  gentle- 
man talks  about  the  misgivings  in  the  public  prints.  I  do  not  know  that  he 
has  seen  what  I  hold  in  my  hand,  an  article  from  this  place  denouncing  this 
jury  because  sixteen  of  them  are  Catholics,  as  they  say,  but  there  it  is — such  an 
article  has  been  written  and  published  in  the  New  York  Herald.  I  know,  too, 
that  the  same  article,  published  yesterday  morning,  foreshadows  the  fact  that 
these  gentlemen  were  to  come  into  court  on  the  day  they  did,  and  make  the 
identical  motion  that  they  have  submitted  here. 


42  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Aud  the  writer  states  the  ground  of  the  motion. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir  ;  states  the  ground  of  the  motion.  It  looks  to  me  as 
if  it  came  from  very  near  home. 

Mr.  PiRRREPONT.  What  does  it  state  as  the  ground  of  the  motion  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  it  is,  (handing  a  copy  of  the  New  York  Herald  to  Mr. 
Pierrepont,)  just  the  same  ground  precisely  as  was  stated  here,  that  it  was  not 
a  lawful  panel. 

Mr.  Pierrepoxt.  Oh!  (laughingly.) 

Mr.  Bradley.  But  I  do  not  mean  to  be  led  off  in  this  way;  and  I  beg  the 
pardon  of  your  honor  for  being  led  away  from  what  is  really  a  very  important 
and  grave  question,  to  which  we  should  confine  ourselves.  I  repeat  that  I  do 
not  mean,  if  I  can  help  it,  to  be  led  into  the  discussion  of  any  outside  matters, 
but  will  endeavor  to  confine  myself  to  the  pure  proposition  of  law. 

Now,  sir,  let  us  look  at  this  statute.  The  act  of  1862  says  :  "  It  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  register  of  Washington  city,  and  of  the  respective  clerks  of  the  city  of 
Georgetown,  and  the  levy  court  of  Washington  county,  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, within  one  month  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  aud  on  or  before  the  first 
day  of  February,  in  each  year  thereafter,  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white 
male  citizens,  tax-payers,  residing  within  their  respective  jurisdictions,  as  they 
shall  judge  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors  in  the  courts  of  said  District,  in 
which  lists  may  be  included,  in  the  discretion  of  the  officer  making  the  same, 
the  names  of  such  qualified  persons  as  were  on  the  list  of  the  previous  year,  but 
did  not  serve  as  jurors,  and  the  lists  thus  made  out  by  the  register  and  clerks 
aforesaid  shall  be  kept  by  them,  respectively,  and  be  delivered  over  to  their 
successoi's  in  office." 

That  is  the  duty  of  these  parties.  But  when  the  polls  ai'e  exhausted,  when 
the  jury  box,  or  the  panel  is  exhausted,  drawn  from  the  jury  box,  then  the 
marshal  shall  go  out  and  summon  "  other  respectable  tax-payers,  possessing  the 
other  legal  qualifications,  to  supply  the  deficiency."  And  then  the  very  next 
clause  is :  "  And  if  at  any  time  there  should  not  be,  by  reason  of  challenge,  or 
otherwise,  a  sufficient  number  of  jurors  to  make  up  the  panel,  the  court  shall 
order  the  marshal  to  summon  as  many  talesmen  as  are  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose." Then  in  the  next  section  it  is  provided  :  "  That  no  person  shall  be 
competent  to  act  as  a  juror  unless  he  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  a  resident 
of  the  District  of  Columbia,  over  twent3''-one  and  under  sixty-five  years  of  age, 
a  good  and  lawful  man,  who  has  never  been  convicted  of  a  felony,"  and  so  on. 
Now,  sir,  I  agree  that  these  officers  in  selecting  their  jurors  are  to  confine  them- 
selves to  "  white  male  citizens,"  but  I  say  when  that  panel  is  exhausted,  aud 
the  marshal  goes  out  from  this  court  to  summon  talesmen,  he  has  to  summon 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  between  twenty-one  and  sixty-five  years  of  age, 
tax-payers,  resident  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  He  is  confined  to  white  men. 

Mr.  Bradley,  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  That  is  what  we  hold.  That  is  one  of  the  first  qualifica- 
tions mentioned.     He  could  not  summon  any  other. 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir.  Nowhere  in  the  statute  will  you  find  the  term 
"  white  male  citizen"  repeated. 

The  Court.  Perhaps  the  counsel  might  reverse  his  position  if  the  marshal 
should  happen  to  summon  such  on  the  next  panel.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then,  sir,  I  might  argue  the  other  way.  The  question  is  not 
settled  yet,  and  I  am  only  stating  my  present  convictions.  Argument  by  coun- 
sel on  the  other  side  might  disturb  those  convictions  a  good  deal,  and  cause  me 
to  go  over  to  the  other  side.  [Laughter.]  If  the  court  please,  that  is  the 
"  chance"  if  the  motion  be  granted.  And  I  would  here  ask  the  counsel,  if  the 
marshal  should  go  out  with  the  order  of  this  court  to  summon  talesmen,  "  citi- 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  43 

zens  of  the  United  States,  between  twenty-one  and  sixty-five  years  of  age,  tax- 
payers, resident  in  the  city  of  "Washington,"  and  should  return  here  a  panel  of 
colored  men,  we  could  challenge  the  array. 

Mr.  PiBRREPONT,  We  would. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  Gentlemen,  I  don't  want  to  give  you  the  chance;  I  don't 
want  to  put  your  virtue  to  so  severe  a  test.    [Laughter.] 

One  word,  sir,  as  to  the  construction  of  this  statute  and  I  leave  this  question. 
Is  it  directory  or  is  it  not  ?  In  the  cases  referred  to  in  7th  Wendell,  we  find 
that  where  certain  proceedings  are  required,  not  essential  to  the  substance,  and 
they  be  not  observed,  non-compliance  will  not  vitiate  the  list  of  the  jury;  they 
will  not  vitiate  the  panel  of  the  jury.  Where  a  man  is  tried  for  a  capital  offence 
by  a  jury,  all  of  whose  names  were  not  put  into  the  box  before  they  began  to 
draw  the  panel,  and  the  statute  in  terms  required  that  they  should  be  put  into 
the  box,  the  court  said  that  the  statute  was  directory. 

Now  let  us  look  at  this  statute.     It  provides  that  the  register  of  the  city  of 
Washington  shall  make  out  a  list  of  persons  whom  he  deems  best  qualified  as 
jurors  ;  the  clerks  of  Georgetown  and   the  county  the  same.     It    says,  "  the 
officers  aforesaid  shall  select."     The  gentlemen  say  it  was  a  power  conferred 
upon  these  three  men  jointly ;  each  man  must  carry  to  that  meeting  a  greater 
number  than  the  amount  to   be  selected.     The  register  of  Washington   must 
carry  more  than   four  liundred,  because  out  of  his  list  is  to  be  selected  four 
hundred,  and  so  as  to  the  others      If  he  carries  only  four  hundred  there  cannot 
be  much  of  a  selection.     He  has  then  to  carry,  according  to  their  construction, 
more  than  four  hundred,  in  order  that  the  other  two  may  select.     The  statute 
says  he  shall  make  out  a  list  of  those  whom  he  deems  best  qualified  for  jurors, 
and  each  of  the  others  do  the  same;  and  the  officers  aforesaid  shall  select  from 
the  list  made  out  by  the  register  of  Washington,  four  hundred  names,  and  from 
the  others  so  many.     They  say  that  that  is  wholly  illegal  and  void,  unless  they 
all  three  unite  in  making  this  selection.    Is  it  so,  or  is  this  provision  merely  direc- 
tory 1    Does  the  failure  of  the  three  to  act  jointly  vitiate  the  panel  or  not  1  Is  it  a 
power  granted  to  three  to  be  excercised  by  the  three  together,  or  can  it  be  exercised 
by  each  one  for  himself?   Suppose  only  two  of  them  met — suppose  there  is  no  clerk 
alive  in  Georgetown,  or  in  the  county,  and  the  time  comes  round  when  they  are  to 
make  the  selection,  what  are  we  to  do  then  ?  We  cannot  have  any  jury  in  that  part 
of  the  District ;  you  cannot  have  any  jury.  If  it  is  a  power  given  to  the  three,  each 
and  all  three  must  unite  in  exercising  it.     Two  cannot  exercise  it.     Nay,  more  : 
suppose  they  are  all  three  together,  and  two  of  them  agree  upon  a  man  while  a  third 
differs,  what  is  to  be  done  ?     There  is  no  power  given  in  that  case.     The  inference 
is  that  the  majority  shall  govern.  That,  I  suppose,  is  an  ordinary  rule.  There  is  no 
provision  for  it.     What  then  was  the  intention  of  the  legislature  1     It  was  to  get  a 
list  of  jurors  prepared  by  men  not  concerned  in  trials  in  court,  criminal  or  civil, 
not  partisans,  but  men  bound  by  their  official  position  to  do  justice,  and  to  make 
out  a  list  equally  as  they  could  between  all  the  contending  parties.     Each  man 
makes  out  his   list;  he  has  exercised  his  best  judgment.     Is  he  prepared  to 
submit  that  judgment  to  the  other  parties  or  not  ?    I  mean,  is  the  law  mandatory 
or  is  it  directory  ?     Does  anybody  complain  1     No.     Does  anybody  say  there 
is  any  irregularity  except  this  misapplication  of  the  law  1    No.    What  does  Judge 
Savage  say  in  the  case  I  read  from  7th  Wendell  :  "  That  where  it  was  by  the 
mistake  of  the  parties,  it  does  not  usually  vitiate."     There  must  be  corru])tion, 
and  the  corruption  must  be  alleged  and  proved ;  but  this  is  not  the  mode  by 
which  that  charge  of  corruption  can  be  investigated  and  established.     There  is 
a  mode,  undoubtedly,  by  which   the   United   States  might  have  reached  any 
irregularity,  but  it  cannot  be  by  this  process  of  challenging  the  array.     The 
statute,  then,  means  to   get  an  honest  and  unbiased  jury,  and  although  there 
were,  and  are  now,  and  always    will  be,  persons   residing  in  the  same  town, 


44  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

differing  in  their  political  sentiments — some  for,  and  some  against,  the  govern- 
ment; some  sympathizing  and  some  not  sympathizing — yet  Congress  has 
invested  these  men  with  discretion  ;  has  given  them  a  directory  authority,  and 
if  these  officers  had  made  a  mistake  in  the  exeixise  of  that  authority  thus  given 
to  them,  and  the  law  is  directory,  then  that  mistake  does  not  vitiate  the  panel. 

May  it  please  your  honor,  the  argument  of  ab  iwoni-eniente  is  a  very  appro- 
priate one  here.  If  it  be  true  that  this  whole  list  of  jurors  is  illegal,  and  cannot 
be  passed  upon,  I  ask  your  honor  Avhere  are  you  going  to  get  a  jury  until  next 
February. 

Mr.  PiKRREPONT.  The  statute  provides  the  mode. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  am  answered  that  the  statute  provides  the  mode.  Why, 
if  your  honor  please,  does  not  this  law  afiect  the  civil  as  well  as  the  criminal 
court?  Does  the  statute  provide  for  that  ?  Did  Congress  mean  when  they  said, 
that  if  the  panel  is  exhausted  the  court  should  order  the  marshal  to  empannel  a 
jury,  that  the  court  should  order  a  jury  to  be  summoned  when  there  has  been 
no  jury  returned  or  empan'^elled  or  listed?  Can  it  be  pretended  here,  if  the 
court  pleases,  that  if  these  officers,  the  register  of  the  city  of  Washington,  the 
clerk  of  Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  county,  had  never  met  to  perform  the 
duty  under  that  law,  that  the  court  could  have  ordered  a  jury  to  be  summoned  or 
the  marshal  to  go  out  and  summon  talesmen  ?  It  is  made  to  depend  entirely 
upon  the  exhaustion  of  a  "panel,"  anda  "panel"  means  a  "legal  panel."  This 
list  of  names  i§  no  panel  unless  it  is  legally  here.  There  is  no  return  of  the 
jurors,  because  the  list  of  jurors  put  into  the  clerk's  hands,  according  to  their 
theory,  is  no  list,  and  there  being  no  list  and  no  return,  there  is  no  panel,  and 
there  being  no  panel  it  cannot  be  exhausted,  and  if  it  is  not  exhausted  then  the 
marshal  cainiot  summon  talesmen. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Our  argument  is,  that  the  panel  is  illegally  summoned. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Why,  may  it  please  your  honor,  an  illegal  panel  is  no  panel 
at  all.  The  very  ground  upon  which  they  proceed  is,  that  there  is  no  jury  here. 
If  there  is  a  jury  here  let  them  go  on  and  try  the  case.  It  is  because  there  is  no 
jury  here  that  they  seek  now  to  summon  a  jury  here,  and  there  is  no  jury  here 
they  say  because  these  officers  failed  to  discharge  their  duty  according  to  law,  to 
make  their  returns  according  to  law.  Therefore  there  being  no  return,  no  panel,  I 
ask  how  the  panel  can  be  exhausted.  That  is  the  question.  Let  me  read  that  pas- 
sage again.     I  believe  my  learned  friend  has  confounded  words  here. 

*  *  "  In  a  capital  case,  where  the  said  panel  shall  have  been  exhausted  by 
reason  of  challenge  or  otherwise,  the  court,  before  whom  such  capital  case  is 
pending,  may,  in  its  discretion,  order  additional  names  to  be  drawn  ;  and  if  all  the 
names  in  the  box  shall  have  been  drawn  ou  tand  no  jury  found;  the  court  may 
order  the  jury  to  summon  talesmen  until  a  jury  shall  be  found,  and  if  a  jury  be  re- 
quired for  the  circuit  court,  the  twenty-six  persons  whose  names  shall  first  be  drawn 
shall  constitute  the  jury  for  that  term, and  the  names  of  the  persons  drawn  as  afore- 
said shall  not  be  again  placed  in  such  box  for  the  period  of  two  years.  If  any 
person,  whose  name  is  so  drawn,  shall  have  died  or  removed  from  the  district,  or 
has  become  otherwise  disabled  from  serving  as  a  juror,  the  said  register  and 
clerks  shall  draw  from  the  box  another  name  who  shall  serve  instead,  and  after 
the  requisite  number  of  jurors  shall  have  been  so  drawn,  the  said  box  shall  be 
again  sealed  and  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  circuit  court  as  aforesaid." 

Now,  sir,  if  thei-e  are  no  such  persons  legally  selected,  drawn,  or  summoned, 
how  can  there  be  a  panel.  How  can  the  marshal  proceed  to  summon  a  panel  in 
the  place  of  that  exhausted  by  challenge  or  otherwise,  when  there  is  no  panel 
to  be  so  exhausted.  He  cannot  do  it,  in  my  humble  view.  1  think  the  intention 
of  Congress  in  this  matter  is  perfectly  clear,  and,  therefore,  I  shall  not  further 
discuss  that  question.  I  contend,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  ground  upon  which 
this  challenge  of  array  can  stand. 


TRIAL    OP    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  45 

'I'he  District  Attor.xev.  I  do  not  rise  for  tlie.piirpo.se  of  ar^-uiiig  the  mo- 
tion before  the  court,  but,  with  the  permission  of  your  honor,  and  my  learned 
friend,  simply  to  say  a  word  or  two  regarding  a  certain  statement  in  one  of  the 
newspapers  of  the  day  to  wliich  my  attention  has  just  b(;en  called.  It  is  an 
item  in  the  New  York  Herald,  purporting  to  be  telegraphed  from  this  city.  The 
article  is  not  very  complimentary  to  myself,  but  as  my  friend  is  spoken  of  in 
very  high  terms,  I  am  not  disposed  to  quarrel  with  the  writer,  for,  as  a  generous- 
hearted  man,  1  am  more  anxious  for  the  reputation  of  my  friend  than  I  am  for 
my  own.  What  is  intimated  in  it,  I  would  not  think  of  sutHcient  im- 
portance to  bo  called  to  the  attention  of  the  ccmrt,  were  it  not  that  allusion  has 
been  made  to  it  here  by  the  learned  counsel  who  last  addressed  your  honor  He 
stated  that  there  was  some  reason  not  made  known  for  the  motion  which  we 
have  submitted.     I  deem  it  due  to  myself  to  say 

]\Ir.  Bradley.  I  beg  your  pardon  if  I  have  said  anything  wrong.  I  thought 
it  was  a  fair  retort  upon  what  was  said  by  Judge  Pierrepont. 

The  District  Attormjy.  Notwithstanding  the  disclaimer  of  the  gentleman 
to  impute  any  wrong  motive  to  us  in  subniittirg  the  motion  now  before  your 
honor,  1  think,  inasmuch  as  public  reference  has  been  made  to  it  here,  it  is  due  to  my 
position  before  the  country  to  say  a  word.  I  will  here  say,  then,  that  there  is 
no  one  Avho  would  more  earnestly  and  sincerely  deprecate  any  appeal  to  religious 
prejudices  than  myself.  Politicians  may  speak,  think,  and  act  as  they  please, 
but  for  my  part  I  would  drive  from  the  halls  of  justice  the  demon  of  party  spirit 
and  religious  fanaticism.  I  trust  in  God  the  day  will  never  come  when  a  judge, 
or  a  jury,  will  be  influenced  in  the  discharge  of  the  highest  and  most  solenni  duty 
that  could  possibly  be  devolved  upon  human  beings  by  political  or  religious 
considerations. 

In  regard  to  the  construction  which  has  been  given  by  the  learned  gentleman 
to  that  part  of  the  act  which  invests  the  court  with  power  to  order  the  marshal, 
when  the  jtauel  has  been  exhausted  by  challenge  or  otherwise,  to  summon  jurors, 
I  deem  it  also  proper  to  say  that  the  marshal  would  be  entrusted  with  power, 
with  a  right,  to  summon  no  other  than  white  persons.     All  I  desire 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  beg  your  honor's  pardon,  but  this  subject  has  been  very 
fully  discussed  by  counsel  on  both  sides,  and  I  hope  no  fuither  discusion  will 
take  place. 

The  District  Attor.\ev\  Very  well,  sir,  I  am  satisfied.  I  only  intended 
to  say  a  word  or  two. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see  how  it  would  be  possible  for  me  to  render  my  opin- 
ion on  this  question  to  day.  We  have  a  great  deal  of  business  before  the  su- 
preme court,  sitting  in  hranc,  and  we  have  a  session  to-morrow  for  the  purpose  of 
concluding  that  business  for  the  term.  The  court  is  to  meet  at  2  o'clock  on 
that  day,  and,  as  it  is  expected  several  very  important  decisions  will  then 
be  rendered,  it  is  proper  and  necessary  that  o{)portuiiity  should  be  afforded  for 
consultation  with  regard  to  them.  1  will  endeavor,  however,  to  be  ready  to 
give  an  opinion  upon  this  question  to-morrow  morning,  and  in  order  to  hasten 
the  progress  of  the  cause,  and  that  no  time  may  be  lost  by  adjourning  now — an 
hour  before  our  usual  time — if  it  will  be  agreeable  to  counsel  on  either  side,  we 
will  meet  to-raon*ow  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

Counsel  on  either  side  expressing  their  assent,  the  court  thereupon  adjourned 
until  to-morrow  morning  at  9  o'clock. 

Ju\E  12,  1S67. 
The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock. 

The  Court  then  said  :  In  regard  to  the  motion  of  the  district  attorney  to  quash 
the  array,  or  to  challenge  the  array  granted  upon  the  affidavit  of  Samuel  Doug- 


46  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SUERATT 

lass,  register  of  Wasliington  city,  I  have  considered  the  argument  advanced  by 
learned  counsel  on  both  sides,  and  I  will  now  proceed  to  pronounce  my  opinion 
in  regard  to  the  motion  : 

The  act  of  Congress,  approved  June  16,  1862,  entitled  "  an  act  for  the  selec- 
tion of  jurors  to  serve  in  the  several  courts  of  the  District  of  Columbia,"  provides 
for  the  selection  of  jurors  in  the  following  manner: 

First.  It  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  register  of  the  city  of  "Washington,  on  or 
before  the  first  day  of  February,  to  prepare  a  list  of  such  of  the  white  male  citi- 
zens, taxpayers  residing  within  this  city,  whom  he  may  deem  best  qualified  to 
serve  as  jurors,  in  which  he  may  include  the  names  of  such  qualified  peiossn 
as  were  on  his  list  for  the  previous  year,  but  who  did  not  serve  as  jurors  ;  the 
clerk  of  the  levy  court  is  also  required  to  make  a  list,  by  the  same  time  and  in 
like  manner,  from  such  persons  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors  who  reside  in  that 
portion  of  the  District  not  included  in  either  of  the  cities  of  Washington  or 
Georgetown,  and  the  clerk  of  the  city  of  Georgetown  is  required  to  make,  at  the 
same  time  and  manner,  a  list  of  persons  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors,  from  citizens 
of  similar  qualifications  residing  in  Georgetown.  And  each  of  these  officers  is 
required  to  preserve  such  list,  so  made,  in  the  archives  of  his  office,  and  to  trans- 
mit the  same  to  his  successor. 

The  making  of  these  several  lists  is  to  be  the  work  of  each  officer  in  his 
separate  official  capacity. 

The  lists  for  the  three  principal  divisions  of  the  District  being  thus  prepared, 
it  is  made  the  duty  of  these  three  officers  to  act  together,  and  select,  in  their 
joint  capacity,  from  the  lists  so  prepared  as  aforesaid  by  the  register  of  Wash- 
ington city,  the  names  of  four  hundred  persons,  and  from  the  Georgetown  lists 
the"  names  of  eighty  persons,  and  from  the  lists  prepared  by  the  levy  court  the 
names  of  forty  persons. 

The  first  section,  which  imposes  the  duty  of  preparing  the  lists  of  qualified 
jurors,  treats  of  that  duty  as  the  duty  of  these  officers  respectively.  Each  one 
is,  in  the  express  language  of  the  act,  "  to  make  a  list,"  and  each  is  permitted,  by 
the  law,  to  place  upon  his  list  the  names  of  such  qualified  persons  as  were  on  the 
list  of  the  previous  year,  as,  "in  the  discretion  of  the  officer  making  the  same," 
may  seem  proper.  The  lists  are  to  be  made  by  them,  and  kept  by  them 
respectively,  each  one  preparing  and  having  the  charge  and  safe  keeping  of  his 
own  list  of  the  persons  for  his  respective  district. 

About  this  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and,  indeed,  there  is  no  controversy  in  this 
case.  When  we  come  to  the  second  section  of  the  act,  which  provides  for  the 
number  of  names  to  be  selected  from  these  several  lists  of  persons  qualified  to 
serve  as  jurors,  persons  of  whose  qualifications  each  of  these  officers  is  to  judge 
severally  within  his  own  jurisdiction  or  precinct,  we  find  that  the  legislature  no 
longer  uses  the  word  respective  or  respectively,  but  proceeds  to  declare,  in 
ij)sissifnis  verbis,  "  that  the  officers  aforesaid  "  (all  of  them,  not  one  or  two,  but 
all  three  of  them)  "  shall  select  from  the  list  of  the  register  of  Washington  city 
the  names  of  four  hundred  person,  from  that  of  the  clerk  of  Georgetown  eighty 
persons,  and  from  that  of  the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  forty  persons."  While  the 
work  of  preparing  the  three  lists  is  the  several  labor  of  the  officers,  independent 
of  one  another,  the  work  of  selecting  the  five  hundred  and  twenty  names  is 
devolved  upon  "  the  officers  aforesaid,"  the  whole  three  conjunctly.  It  may  not, 
perhaps,  be  necessary  that  they  should  all  meet  together,  and  at  the  same  time 
and  place  agree  upon  the  fotn-  hundred  names  to  be  taken  from  the  Washington 
list,  or  eighty  from  the  Georgetown  list,  or  the  forty  from  the  county  li.st,  but 
certain  it  is,  that  all  "  the  officers  aforesaid"  shall  select  the  number  of  names 
prescribed  by  the  statute.  If  one  of  the  clerks  only  shall  make  the  selection 
from  the  list  prepared  by  himself,  or  even  if  two  of  them  shall  make  the  selec- 
tion, this  will  not  meet  the  requirement  of  the  law. 

The  principle  has  been  too  well  established  by  a  long  current  of  decisions  to 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  47 

be  now  questioned,  that  when  the  law,  enjoining  upon  three  or  more  the  duty  of 
performing  an  act,  without  giving  to  a  majority  the  power  to  act  in  the  premises, 
all  must  act,  or  the  action  of  those  who  do  act  is  a  nullity,  and  there  is  not  in 
the  statute  a  fjuestion,  one  single  word  or  syllable,  that  looks  in  the  least  towards 
a  selection  to  be  made  from  the  three  lists,  or  any  of  them,  except  by  the  united 
judgment  of  three  officers  upon  whom  the  duty  is  imposed. 

It  is  just  as  certain,  therefore,  that  the  entire  three  must  act  in  making  the 
selection  of  five  hundred  and  twenty  names  for  jurors,  as  that  eacli  of  the  clerks 
and  the  register  is  to  prepare  his  own  lists  severally. 

After  these  five  hundred  and  twenty  names  shall  have  been  selected  by  "  the 
officers  aforesaid,"  then  the  fourth  section  of  the  act  of  Congress  further  pro- 
vides, that  "  the  names  selected  from  said  lists  shall  be  written  on  separate  and 
similar  pieces  of  paper,  which  shall  be  so  folded  or  rolled  up  that  the  names 
cannot  be  seen,  and  placed  in  a  box  to  be  provided  by  the  register  and  clerks 
aforesaid,  which  box  shall  be  sealed,  and  after  being  thoroughly  shaken,  shall 
be  delivered  to  the  clerk  "  of  this  court.  The  fifth  section  provides,  that  when 
juries  are  needed  for  any  of  the  courts  during  the  year,  the  register  and  city 
clerks,  and  the  clerk  of  this  court,  shall  meet  at  the  city  hall,  and  such  juries 
shall  be  drawai  by  the  clerk  of  this  court,  who  is  to  publicly  break  the  seal  of 
the  box  and  proceed  to  draw  the  requisite  number  of  names. 

Such  are,  briefly  stated,  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  upon  Avhich  the 
motion  in  this  case  to  quash  the  array  is  rested,  as  I  understand  them,  and  as  I 
apprehend  they  must  be  utiderstood  by  everybody  possessed  of  ordinary 
cajjacity,  and  free  from  the  bias  of  interest  or  prejudice.  There  can  be  no  other 
construction  put  upon  these  provisions,  which  will  not  do  violence  to,  and,  indeed, 
utterly  pervert  the  language  used  by  the  legislature  to  convey  their  intention. 
lu  enacting  these  provisions  it  was  doubtless  the  intention  of  Congress  no  longer 
to  leave  in  the  hands  of  one  man — the  marshal,  or  any  other  single  man — the 
power  of  selecting  juries,  in  whole  or  in  part,  except  in  the  exigencies  of  certain 
cases,  for  which  they  provided  in  the  same  act,  and  which  cases  are  of  rare 
occurrence.  This  power,  vested  oftentimes  in  marshals  and  sheriffs,  nobody 
doubts,  had  heretofore  been  often  grossly  abused,  and  in  many  instances  made 
the  instrument  of  injustice,  and  wrong,  and  Congress  thought  it  would  better 
serve  the  purposes  of  justice  if  it  should  institute  the  combined  selective  power 
to  three  or  four  officers,  the  register  of  Washington  city,  the  clerk  of  George- 
town, the  clerk  of  the  levy  court,  and  the  clerk  of  the  supreme  court,  in  the 
place  of  the  much  abused  and  arbitrary  solitary  power  of  the  marshal.  This 
language,  in  my  judgement,  expresses  the  intention  as  clearly  as  any  idea  can 
be  pictured  by  the  English  language.  Each  of  these  officers  was,  doubtless, 
intended  to  act  as  a  safeguard  against  any  abuse  which  the  partiality,  bias,  or 
corrupt  disposition  of  the  other  might  possibly  allnre  him  to  commit. 

The  affidavit  of  Samuel  E.  Douglass,  the  register  of  Washington  city  at  the 
time  of  the  selection,  made  in  January  or  February  last,  of  the  names  from  which 
the  present  panel  of  jurors  is  taken,  shows,  first,  that  neither  the  clerk  of  George- 
town, nor  of  the  levy  court,  saw  one  single  name  on  his  list,  much  less  aided  or 
CO  operated  with  him  in  selecting  the  four  hundred  which  the  law  requires  that 
these  three  "officers  aforesaid"  should  select,  and  that  he  did  not  see  a  single 
name  upon  the  list  of  either  of  the  others,  or  co-operate  in  selecting  from  their 
lists.  On  the  contrary,  it  shows  that  each  of  these  three  officers  put  into  the 
■  box  the  number  of  names  specified  in  the  act  for  their  respective  jurisdictions, 
each  independently  of  the  other,  and  without  the  slightest  regard  to  the  judg- 
ment or  consent  of  either  of  the  other  two. 

The  affidavit  further  shows,  that  after  the  selection  of  the  names  to  be  put  in 
the  box  had  been  thus  made,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  requirements  of  the  act  of 
Congress  in  that  behalf,  instead  of  sealing  up  the  box  and  thoroughly  shaking 
it,  and  then  depositing  it  with  the  clerk  of  the  supreme  court,  as  required  by  the 


48  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRA'IT. 

fourtli  section,  and  then  meeting  afterwards  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of  the  court 
to  witnees  him  break  the  seal  and  draw  the  names  of  the  jury  required  for  the 
present  term  of  this  court,  as  provided  for  in  the  fifth  section  of  the  act,  the 
clerk  of  Georgetown  city  at  the  same  time,  though  in  the  pi-esence  of  the  clerk 
of  the  court  and  the  other  officers,  proceeded  to  draw  from  the  box  the  names  of 
this  present  panel,  to  which  challenge  is  now  made.  Tliis  was  also  a  most  re- 
prehensible disregard  of  the  plain  provisions  of  the  act.  These  are  the  facts 
upon  which  tlie  application  to  quash  the  array  is  grounded.  The  question 
presented  by  the  law,  and  the  facts,  (which  are  all  admitted  by  the  demurrer,) 
for  the  decision  of  the  court,  is  twof  )ld  in  its  character  : 

First.  Does  the  law  of  Congress  require  that  the  judgment  of  all  three  of  the 
officers  named  therein  should,  either  united  or  several)}',  pass  upon  the  entire 
five  hundred  and  twenty  names  required  to  go  into  the  box  in  making  this 
selection  from  the  three  lists,  or  does  it  only  require  that  the  clerk  of  George- 
town only  should  pass  judgment  in  selecting  the  eighty  names  from  that  city, 
the  clerk  of  the  levy  court  upon  the  forty  to  be  chosen  from  the  rural  portion 
of  the  District,  and  the  register  of  Washington  to  select  the  four  hundred 
to  be  taken  from  this  city  ? 

Secondly.  Whether,  if  the  act  of  Congress  does  require  the  judgment  of  all 
three  of  these  officers  to  be  exercised  in  the  selection  of  the  entire  iive  hundred 
and  twenty  names  to  be  placed  in  the  box,  the  placing  them  there  in  the  manner 
described  by  Mr.  Douglass  in  his  affidavit,  is  cause  of  principal  challenge  to  the 
array. 

[  am  clear  in  my  conviction  that  the  law  requires  the  united  judgment  of  the 
three  officers  named  in  the  act  in  the  selection  of  the  entire  number  of  names  to 
be  placed  in  the  box,  for  the  reasons  that  I  have  ah-eady  mentioned. 

Is,  then,  the  several  action  of  each  of  these  officers  in  selecting  exclusively 
from  his  own  list,  and  not  even  looking  at  the  lists  of  either  of  the  others,  or 
even  knowing  any  of  the  names  taken  from  these  lists  to  be  placed  in  the  box, 
as  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Douglass,  and  admitted  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner,  a 
ground  in  law  upon  which  to  set  aside  the  array. 

It  is  argued  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  that  it  is  not ;  that  nothing  ex- 
cept a  defect  in  the  summoning  of  a  jury  by  the  sheriff  is  principal  cause  of 
challenge  to  the  array  in  England  by  the  common  law,  which  we  have  inherited 
from  our  Biitish  ancestors,  and  winch  is  the  law  in  this  District,  by  which  we 
are  to  be  governed  in  the  decision  of  this  question  ;  and  the  case  of  the  Queen 
against  O'Coiniell  and  others,  has  been  cited  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  as  conclusive  of  the  question  in  tliis  case. 

I  confess  that  my  veneration  f  )r  tlie  common  law  of  England  may  sometimes 
even  run  into  a  weakness,  but  the  day  is  long  passed  with  me,  and  should  be 
with  everybody,  when  decisions  of  courts  and  mere  arbitrary  utterances  of 
test-writers,  however  hoary  with  age,  or  exalted  in  position,  are  to  be  accepted 
as  Procustian  beds,  on  which  otlier  courts  and  other  people  are  bound  to  fit 
themselves,  with  or  without  reason.  Witli  me  no  decision  is  of  weight  that  lacks 
of  reason  for  its  solid  foundation,  unless  it  be  the  decision  of  a  superior  court 
that  holds  a  mastery  over  me,  whose  mandates,  right  or  wrong,  reasonable  or 
unreasonable,  I  am  compelled  by  law  to  obey. 

The  grand  object  of  jury  trials  in  this  country  or  in  England  is,  or  ouglit  to 
be,  and  is  supposed  to  be,  a  fair  and  impartial  investigation  of  the  subject  in 
controversy  by  honest  and  upright  meu,  who  are  entirely  inditf.rent  between 
the  parties  to  the  suit.  It  was  to  subserve  .this  view  that  cliallenges  were  per- 
mitted to  be  made  either  to  tlie  array  or  to  the  poll,  and  either  by  principle  or 
by  favor.  Some  persons  entertain  the  idea  that  challenges,  and  many  other 
advantages,  are  given  by  the  commmi  law  to  the  prisoner  exclu-ively,  and 
nothing  to  tiie  State.  Tliis  is  as  if  we  should  say,  that  all  the  provisions  and 
formularies  of  the  common  law  were  invented  simply  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SUREATT.  49 

venting  the  public  from  obtaining  its  just  demands  upon  the  guilty  offender 
against  society.  It  is  as  though  such  formularies  were  a  mere  means  and  cere- 
mony by  which  the  accused  is  to  derive  every  advantage  and  have  every  means 
to  assist  in  setting  him  at  large,  without  respect  to  the  rights  of  an  offended  com- 
munity. I  enteitain  a  different  opinion.  I  concur  Avith  Chief  Justice  Gibson, 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  vs.  Joliffe,  7th  Watt,  585, 
in  which  he  says  :  "Total  impunity  was  not  the  end  proposed  by  the  legis- 
lature, nor  ought  it,  perhaps,  to  be  desired  by  the  philanti'opist.  It  is  not  easy 
to  discover  a  conclusive  reason  why  the  punishment  of  the  felon  ought  to  move 
our  tenderest  sympathies,  or  why  the  laws  ought  to  be  defectively  construed 
in  purpose  that  he  might  elude  them.  To  rob  the  executioner  of  his  victim  when 
the  laws  are  sanguinary,  it  might  be  an  achievement  to  boast  of,  but  we  are  told 
at  the  mitigation  of  our  penal  code  that  the  certainty  of  conviction  to  be  ex- 
pected from  mildness  of  punishment  would  more  than  compensate  in  its  effects 
the  want  of  that  severity  which  was  thought  to  deter  by  its  terrors.  *  *  If 
it  be  further  indulged,  a  shorter  and  certainly  a  cheaper  mode  of  obtaining  its 
end  would  be  to  have  no  prosecution  at  all.  But  it  is  one  which  would  scarce 
be  found  to  answer  in  the  state  of  the  times.  Why,  then,  should  the  prisoner 
have  more  than  serves"  (speaking  of  challenges)  "  to  give  him  a  fair  trial?  and 
his  twenty  peremptory  challenges  certainly  gives  him  that,  and  having  secured 
to  him  all  he  had  a  right  to  require,  it  must  have  occurred  to  the  legislature  that 
the  commonwealth  must  have  a  fair  trial  too." 

Let  us  now  see  whether  the  case  of  O'Connell  and  the  Queen,  tried  in  1844, 
is  one  which  we  ought,  according  to  the  counsel  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  to 
accept  as  conclusive  upon  the  question  now  before  us.  In  that  case,  by  3d  and 
4th  William  IV,  chapter  19,  and  by  4th  and  5th  William  IV,  chapter  Sth,  cer- 
tain provisions  were  made  regulating  the  mode  in  which  certain  books  should 
be  prepared,  from  which  the  sheriff  was  required  to  make  certain  a  selection  of 
juries. 

In  the  preparation  of  one  or  more  of  the  lists  from  which  these  jury  books 
were  made  a  number  of  names  of  persons  qualified  as  jurors  was  omitted.  A 
challenge;  to  the  array  was  made  in  this  case  on  the  ground  of  the  omission,  and 
it  Avas  held  that  such  omission  in  one  of  the  preliminary  lists  was  not  a  suffi- 
cient cause  of  challenge  to  the  array.  But  that  is  by  no  means  the  present 
case.  To  make  the  case  at  bar  similar  to  that  of  O'Connell,  and  bring  it  within 
the  ruling  in  tliat  case,  it  would  be  necessary  that  Congress  should,  in  the  law 
for  summoning  jurox's,  have  incorporated  a  provision  requiring  that  the  three 
officers,  who  stand  in  the  place  of  the  sheriff,  should  have  prepared  their  res])ect- 
ive  lists  from  the  lists  of  the  assessors,  or  some  other  officers,  and  that  in  mak- 
ing the  lists  of  said  other  officers  some  negligent  or  fraudulent  omission  should 
have  occurred.  It  may  be  admitted,  without  any  prejudice  to  the  motion  in 
this  case,  that  the  omission  by  such  assessors  or  other  officers  to  make  a  com- 
plete list  from  the  list  or  jury  book,  if  we  may  so  term  it,  used  by  the  register 
and  clerks,  in  order  to  inform  them  as  to  who  all  the  persons  legally  qualified 
as  jurors  in  their  respective  jurisdictions  were,  would  not  have  been  of  sufficient 
ground  of  itself  to  set  up  this  motion.  And  yet  I  am  free  to  say  that,  in  my 
opinion,  it  ought  to  be  sufficient.  But  admitting  it  were  not,  it  is  a  very  differ- 
ent case  from  the  one  before  us.  Here  Congress  requires  that  we  combine  the 
judgment  of  three  officers  in  selecting  the  persons  of  whom  the  juries  are  to  be 
composed.  Each  of  these  officers  is  to  be  a  guard  over  the  other  two,  to  pre- 
vent him  from  perpetrating  a  wrong  against  individuals  or  the  community  by 
putting  in  the  box,  from  which  jurors  for  a  Avhole  year  are  to  l)e  taken  in  all  the 
courts,  the  names  of  persons  who  are  disqualified,  either  from  want  of  mental 
capacity,  moral  rectitude,  purity  of  blood,  Avant  of  proper  age,  or  tax  paying 
qualifications. 

4 


50  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

If  one  of  these  officers,  as  Mr.  Douglass  did  on  the  occasion  of  filling  the 
jury-box  on  February  last,  should  exercise  an  exclusive  judgment  in  the  selec- 
tion of  400  out  of  the  520  names  put  into  the  box,  the  safeguard  which  Con- 
gress sought,  by  the  act,  to  throw  around  tlie  selection  of  jurors,  is  not  worth  a 
fig,  and  the  law  was  not  worth  the  time  consumed  in  its  passage.  Mr.  Douglass 
may  be,  and  doubtless  is,  an  honest,  fair-minded  and  honorable  man ;  but  the 
law  cannot  be  relaxed  on  that  account,  for  we  cannot  tell  how  long  the  office 
may  continue  to  be  filled  b}  such  men.  It  was  enacted  to  prevent  dishonest  or 
prejudiced  or  partial  men  from  carrying  out  their  dishonesty,  prejudices  or  par- 
tiality, and  we  have  no  right  to  relax  the  law  because  of  our  belief  in  the  fair- 
ness of  any  man. 

The  public,  as  well  as  individuals,  have  a  right  to  exact  a  rigid  compliance 
with  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  the  only  way  to  secure  a  fair  and  impar- 
tial verdict,  both  to  the  public  and  the  prisoner,  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  is 
to  see  that  the  law  be  fully,  fairly,  and  impartially  executed  in  all  its  require- 
ments. The  three  officers  speciiied  in  the  act  of  Congress  stand  in  the  place 
of  the  marshal  or  sheriff.  Juries  who  are  summoned  to  try  cases  in  this  court 
must  not  only  be  summoned  properly,  but  must  be  selected  in  obedience  to  the 
requirements  of  the  laws.  The  case  of  O'Conuell  can  scarcely  be  said  to  be 
regarded  as  law  in  this  country,  where  mere  forms  at  this  day  are  considered  as 
of  mere  secondary  im})ortance  when  compared  with  the  substance  of  the  law. 
If  any  partiality  or  default  in  the  sheriff  or  deputy  in  arraying  the  panel  gives 
either  party  the  right  to  challenge  the  array,  as  is  undoubtedly  the  law,  vide  3d 
Blackstone,  350  ;  then  such  partiality  or  default  on  the  part  of  those  who  are 
substituted  for  the  sheriff  must  likewise  be  good  cause  of  challenge  to  the  array. 
In  the  State  of  New  York  it  has  been  held,  in  the  case  of  Gardner  vs.  Turner, 
.9th  Johnson,  page  260,  that  the  drawing  of  seventy-two  names  by  the  clerk 
from  the  jury-box,  instead  of  thirty-six,  the  number  required  by  law,  and  the 
selecting  of  thirty-six  by  him  out  of  the  seventy-two,  and  his  direction  to  the 
sheriff  to  summon  the  thirty-six  thus  selected  by  him,  was  such  default  as 
would  sustain  a  challenge  to  the  array.  In  the  case  of  James  Maguire,  plain- 
tiff in  error,  vs.  The  People,  defendents  in  error,  (2d  Parker's  Criminal  ilepoi'ts, 
page  148,)  it  was  held  that,  inasmuch  as  the  district  attorney  was  required  by 
statute  to  issue  his  precept  for  summoning  the  petit  jury,  a  jury  summoned  by 
the  sheriff,  without  such  precept  was  wrongfully  summoned,  an<l  the  conviction 
by  such  jury  was  held  to  be  erroneous,  and  the  judgment  of  conviction  was  re- 
versed. In  the  State  of  Delaware,  prior  to  the  year  1850,  the  law  regulating 
the  summoning  of  juries  required,  that  in  cases  of  oyer  and  terminer  the  jury 
should  consist  of  the  thirty-six  jurors  who  are  summoned  to  attend  the  court  of 
general  sessions  of  the  peace,  and  twelve  othei's  specially  summoned  for  the 
coui't  of  oyer  and  terminer,  which  two  courts  were  held  at  the  same  time  by 
the  same  judges,  with  the  exception,  that  in  cases  of  oyer  all  four  of  the  law 
judges  sat  together  instead  of  the  three  who  held  the  court  of  general  sessions. 

In  the  case  of  the  State  rs.  John  Windsor,  5th  Han.,  512,  indicted  for  the 
murder  of  his  wife,  which  was  tried  in  1850,  before  a  very  able  bench,  and  by 
comisel  distinguished  for  their  learning  and  ability  on  either  side,  a  case  which 
was  fully  argued  and  considered,  it  was  decided  that  inasmuch  as  the  act  of 
assembly  provided  that  the  thirty-six  jurors  summoned  for  the  court  of  general 
sessions  should  also  be  summoned  to  attend  upon  the  court  of  oyer  and  termi- 
ner; and  as  these  general  sessions  jurors  had  not  been  summoned  to  attend  the 
court  of  oyer  and  terminer,  although  they  \vere  there  in  attendance,  the  mere 
failure  of  the  sheriff  to  insert  in  their  summons  a  notice  to  attend  the  court  of 
oyer  and  terminer  A\'as  sufficient  ground  upon  which  to  quash  the  entire  array, 
and  it  was  done  accordingly.  It  would  seem  at  first  view  that  the  challenge 
iipou  such  grounds,  in  either  of  these  cases  was  an  objection,  merely  sticking  in 
the  bark,  and  yet  such  is  the  careful  regard  which  courts  in  this  country  enter- 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  51 

tain  in  respect  to  the  selection  of  jurors,  and  the  securing  of  a  ff\ir  and  impar- 
tial trial  on  either  side,  that  they  requiie  a  strict  compliance  witli  the  very  letter 
of  the  law,  no  matter  from  which  side  the  challenge  may  be  moved.  It  is  just 
as  important  to  have  foirness  and  impartiality  upon  the  one  side  as  upon  the 
.  other,  otherwise  the  trial  of  a  criminal,  however  deep  his  infamy,  may  be  made 
a  mere  ffirce  through  which  his  enlargements  is  to  be  procured.  If  it  be  im- 
portant to  observe  the  mere  forms  of  the  law,  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  of  much 
graver  importance  fully  to  comply  with  the  least  of  its  substantial  requirements. 

Believing,  therefore,  that  the  substantial  requirements  of  the  act  of  Congress 
in  this  case,  providing  for  the  selection  of  a  fair  and  impartial  jury,  have  not 
been  complied  with,  but  entirely  set  at  naught,  and  that  there  has  been  grave 
default  upon  the  part  of  these  officers  whom  that  act  has  substituted  in  the  place 
of  the  marshal,  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  exercise  united  judgment  in  the 
selection  of  all  the  persons  whose  names  are  to  go  in  the  jury-box,  I  am  con- 
strained to  allow  the  motion  of  challenge  in  this  case.  I  do  not  consider  the 
fact  that  the  present  panel  were  improperly  drawn  by  the  clerk  of  Georgetown, 
who  had  no  right  to  put  his  hand  into  the  box,  because  the  objection  which  I 
have  allowed  lies  even  deeper  than  that. 

It  is,  therefore,  ordered  by  the  court  that  the  present  panel  be  set  aside,  and 
that  the  marshal  of  the  District  of  Columbia  do  now  proceed  to  summon  a  jury 
of  talesmen. 

Judge  Fisher  subseqaeutly  said  :  My  order  is  that  the  marshal  summon 
twenty-six  talesmen. 

Thereupon  the  court  adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'olock. 

June  13,  1867. 

The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock,  when  the  clerk  proceeded  to  call  over  the 
names  of  talesmen  summoned  yesterday,  in  accordance  with  the  directions  of 
the  court. 

The  first  name  called  was  that  of  Mr.  "William  B.  Todd,  who  responded. 

The  name  of  George  Mattingly  was  next  called.     He  failed  to  answer. 

The  Court  said :  I  will  remark,  with  respect  to  Mr.  Mattiogly,  that  I  have 
received  a  letter  from  him,  as  I  have,  also,  from  numerous  other  gentlemen  who 
have  been  summoned,  asking  to  be  excused  from  serving.  I  will  read  Mr. 
Mattingly's  letter.  I  have  no  doubt  that  what  he  states  is  true.  The  letter 
is  as  follows  : 

"Washington,  D.  C  ,  June  13,  1867. 
"  Dear  Sir  :  I  was  summoned  yesterday  on  the  jury  to  try  Surratt,  and  I  have 
to  say  that  I  cannot  possibly  serve.  Whilst  I  am  willing  to  serve  you,  and  my 
country,  at  all  times,  I  must  respectfully  ask  yon  to  excuse  me  on  this  occasion.  I 
will  here  state,  that  I  am  exempt  on  two  grounds,  so  that  you  will  have  no  difficulty 
in  excusing  me.  First,  I  am  engaged  in  carrying  the  United  States  mails;  and 
secondly,  I  am  over  age,  having  attained  my  sixty-fifth  year  on  the  24th  of 
December,  1866. 

"Very  respectfully,  yours, 

"GEORGE  MATTIXGLY. 
"Hon.  George  P.  Fisher." 

Mr.  Mattingly  is  a  very  excellent  man.     He  has   served  here  a  number  of 
times  on  the  grand  jury,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he  would  make  a  good  juror, 
but  if  he  is  over  age  of  course  he  is  exempt,  and  not  only  exempt,  but  he  can- 
not lawfully  serve.     What  do  you  say,  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  will  have  to  be  excused  if  he  is  over  sixty-five  years  of 
age. 

The  Court.  Yes,  I  have  no  doubt  of  it. 

Mr.  Clerk,  you  will  strike  his  name  from  the  lists. 


52  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

William  H.  Tenney  was  called,  and  responded. 

William  P.  Dole  was  next  called,  but  failed  to  answer. 

Andrew  J.  Joyce  was  called,  and  responded. 

The  Court.  Was  not  Mr.  Joyce  on  the  grand  jury  that  found  this  bill  ? 

Mr.  Joyce.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  thought  he  was.     He  was  on  a  previous  one,  I  remember. 

Mr.  Joyce.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  on  the  grand  jury  previous  to  that,  seventy-one 
days. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  would  make  no  difference,  your  honor,  as  far  as  this  case  is 
concerned,  as  the  law  makes  no  exemption  in  case  of  talesmen. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Joj'ce  hands  me  this  note  : 

"Washington,  D.  C,  June  13,  1867. 
"  This  certifies  that  the  child  of  Mr.  A.  J.  Joyce  is  very  dangerously  ill,  and 
that  his  presence  is  necessary  at  home. 

"  THOMAS  MILLER,  M.  D." 

The  Court.  What  have  you  to  say  to  that  1 

Mr.  Bradley,  All  we  can  say  is  that  it  is  subject  to  the  disposal  of  the  court. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  wish  to  excuse  anybody  where  there  is  objection  made 
to  the  excuse  that  may  be  presented,  but  I  think  wherever  there  is  a  good  and 
valid  excuse  the  party  ought  to  be  relieved. 

The  District  Attorney,  If  your  honor  pleases,  under  the  circumstances, 
I  shall  interpose  no  objection  to  excusing  Mr,  Joyce, 

The  Court.  Mr.  Bradley  do  you  interpose  any  objection  ? 

Mr.  Bradley,  In  his  case,  if  you  honor  pleases,  we  have  to  submit  entirely 
to  the  order  of  the  court.  We  wish  to  be  saved  the  necessity  of  either  objecting 
or  assenting. 

The  Court.  I  find  that,  under  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  for  summoning 
jurors,  there  is  a  discretion  reposed  in  the  court,  and  as  I  would  not  wish 
to  be  required  to  sit  upon  a  jury  in  a  case  when  my  child  was  lying  at  the  point 
of  death,  and  my  physician  advised  my  presence  to  be  necessary  at  home,  I  do 
not  feel  that  it  would  be  just  for  me  to  require  Mr.  Joyce  to  do  so.  He  is  excused, 

Franck  Taylor  was  called,  and  responded. 

The  Court,  I  have  also  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Taylor,  which  I  will  read  : 

"  Washington,  June  13,  1867. 

"  The  undersigned,  with  great  regret,  begs  leave  to  state  to  your  honor  that 
he  has  been  detailed  as  juryman  in  the  Surratt  case,  now  pending ;  that  he  is 
not  at  this  time,  and  has  not  been  for  several  days,  in  a  condition  of  health  fit 
for  that  duty,  nor  able  to  undertake  it  without  a  prospect  of  delaying  and  em- 
barrassing the  case;  that  some  business  affairs  now  maturing  need  urgently  his 
personal  attention,  an  attention  which  is  not  of  a  nature  possibly  to  be  delegated 
to  others  ;  and  that,  if  said  affairs  cannot  receive  said  attention  at  his  hands 
within  a  few  days,  his  credit  and  business  standing  will  be  seriously  injured  in 
two  foreign  countries. 

"  For  these  reasons,  which  the  undersigned  begs  leave  to  substantiate  by  his 
affidavit,  he  respectfully  prays  your  honor  to  allow  him  to  discharge  his  duty 
to  the  law,  and  to  the  court,  at  any  other  moment  than  the  present  one. 

"  Remaining  with  much  respect  and  truth,  your  honor's  obedient  servant, 

"  FRANCK  TAYLOR, 

"Hon.  George  P,  Fisher." 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  might  make  oath  to  the  statement  of  facts  in  the  letter 
and  not  be  placed  under  the  necessity  of  making  an  independent  affidavit. 

The  Court.  I  will  say  that  Mr.  Taylor  stated  to  me  last  night,  after  receiv- 
ing the  summons,  that  he  had  some  business  relations  with  the  government, 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  53 

making  it  necessaiy  for  liim  to  raise  very  large  sums  of  money  In  tlie  transac- 
tion of  that  business,  which  business  is  transacted  between  him  and  persons 
residing  in  foreign  countries,  and  unless  he  had  the  opportunity  to  make  those 
business  arrangements,  it  might  prove  extremely  prejudicial  to  his  credit. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Will  your  honor  pardon  me?  We  on  both  sides  concur  that 
this  is  a  matter  entirely  within  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  and  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  therp.  may  be  excuses,  personal,  and  relating  solely  to  the  private 
affiiirs  of  individuals,  which  they  do  not  want  to  have  made  public.  1  would 
suggest  to  your  honor,  therefore,  that  we  do  not  desii'e  to  hear  any  reasons  of 
tliat  nature  which  may  be  assigned  by  the  party. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Taylor,  I  am  quite  sure,  does  not  object  to  having  the  rea- 
sons he  urges  made  known.  He  is  a  man  of  good  standing,  and  he  is  desirous 
of  maintaining  that  good  standing. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  As  I  Understand  my  learned  friend,  we  both  agree,  that 
in  any  of  these  cases  that  may  arise  we  do  not  ask  to  hear  the  reasons,  but  leave 
it  entirely  with  the  court. 

The  Court.  Very  well.  With  regard  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Taylor,  I  will  state 
that  I  know  from  the  statement  he  made  to  me  that  it  is  of  the  first  importance 
that  he  be  relieved  in  order  to  attend  to  his  business  arrangements.  He  is  ex- 
cused. 

John  R.  Elvans  was  called,  and  responded. 
David  P.  Hollowav  was  called,  when  he  rose  aii'l  said: 
I  beg  leave  to  state  to  the  court  th  it  I  suppose  I  am  not  competent  to  sit  as 
a  juror  in  this  District,  from  the  fact  that  I  am  not  a  citizen  of  the  District. 
For  the  last  six  years  I  have  voted  in  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  am  in  busmess 
there — keeping  a  furnished  house  for  the  purpose  of  retaining  my  residence  in 
that  State  I  never  voted  here,  and  do  not  contemplate  doing  so,  but  expect 
soon  to  return  to  Indiana. 

The  Court.    Are  you  residing  within  the  limits  of  this  District  at  this  time  ? 
Mr.  HoLLOWAY.  I  do  not  know  what  technical  meaning  is  given  to  the  word 
"  residing."     I  am  staying  here. 

The  Court.  Keeping  house  and  transacting  business  here? 
Mr.  HoLLOWAV.  I  am  not  keeping  house. 
The  Court.  Are  you  transacting  business  here  ? 

Mr.  HoLLOWAV.  I  am  transacting  business  here.  I  am  engaged  temporarily 
in  business  here. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Will  your  honor  permit  us  to  make  a  suggestion,  for 
although  we  all  agree  to  leave  this  matter  to  your  honor,  yet  we  feel  that  we  have 
a  duty  to  perform  in  the  way  of  making  such  suggestions  to  you  as  may  occur  to 
us.  With  the  permission  of  the  court  I  would  say,  that  if  light  excuses  are 
taken,  judging  from  the  experience  we  have  all  had  in  such  matters,  the  men 
best  fitted  to  serve  as  jurors  are  those  who  are  engaged  in  important  business 
for  themselves  ;  and  there  is  some  danger,  unless  the  rule  is  adhered  to  somewhat 
strictly,  that  men,  from  a  view  to  their  private  interests  alone,  will  get  rid  of  this 
very  high  duty  which  they  owe  to  their  country.  We  know  very  well  that 
they  wish  to  be  excused,  as  it  is  very  natural  for  them  to,  but  they  should  be 
made  to  feel  the  importance  of  this  great  duty  which  they  are  called  upon  to 
perform. 

The  Court.  The  law  says  that  if  the  party  is  a  resident  here,  is  over  twenty- 
one  and  under  sixty-five  years  of  age,  a  good  and  lawful  man,  who  has  never 

been  convicted  of  a  felony  or  misdemeanor  inv(dving  moral  turpitude 

Mr.  Bradley.  And  a  "  taxpayer."     [Laughter.] 
The  Court.  He  is  a  "  taxpayer  ?" 

Mr.  HuLLOWAY.  No,  sir.  I  have  paid  an  internal  revenue  tax  here,  but  I 
pay  my  other  tax  in  Indiana. 

The  Court.  Do  you  pay  any  tax  on  real  estate,  or  a  personal  tax,  here  ? 


54  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

j\rr.  HoLLOWAY.  I  clo  not. 

■  The  Court.  Then  jou  are  disqualified  ?     Mr.  Holloway  13  excused,  Mr.  Clerk. 

Thomas  Blagden  being  called,  said  : 

I  have  formed  an  opinion.     I  have  read  the  testimony. 

The  Court.  That  will  be  for  jou  to  state,  Mr.  Blagden,  when  you  come  to 
answer  on  your  voire  dire. 

Riley  A.  Shinn  was  called,  and  responded. 

EiCHARD  M.  Hall  being  called,  said  : 

I  would  like  to  represent  to  your  honor  that  I  feel  that  it  would  be  almost 
impossible  for  me  to  sit  here  as  a  juror  in  this  case.  I  am  entirely  alone  in  my 
business  ;  and  it  is  of  that  character — the  agency  business — that  not  only 
would  my  own  interests  materially  suffer  by  being  required  to  serve  as  a  juror 
in  this  case,  but  tlie  interests  of  a  great  many  other  persons  who  have  confided 
business  to  me.  There  are  several  matters  that  demand  my  attention  this 
week — matters  that  I  could  not  delegate  to  a  clerk  in  my  oifice,  as  I  do  not 
think  he  would  be  able  to  carry  on  the  transactions.  They  require  my  per- 
sonal attention.  The  interests  of  other  persons  would  suffer,  perhaps,  a  great 
deal  more  than  my  own,  and  I  may  state  beside  that  that  I  am  living  in  the  coun- 
try with  my  family,  and  if  I  am  required  to  serve  here,  they  will  be  left  alone, 
and  in  a  very  lonely  place.  I  will,  therefore,  be  under  the  necessity  either  of 
moving  back  into  the  city,  or  providing  for  their  care  in  some  other  way. 

The  Court.  Your  excuse,  Mr.  Hall,  would  let  off  nine  out  of  every  ten  of 
the  jury. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  Avill  state  further  that  my  business  is  one  that  I  have  just  be- 
gun— that  of  real  estate  agency — rhaving  just  left  the  office  of  register  of  deeds, 
and  that  in  consequence  of  its  being  so  young,  and  from  the  fact  that  I  can 
delegate  no  one  to  attend  to  it  for  me,  it  would  suffer  materially — iu  fact  irre- 
parably if  I  have  to  remain  here  two  or  three  weeks. 

The  Court.  I  hope  you  will  not  have  to  stay  three  or  four  weeks. 

Thomas  J   S.  Perry  Avas  called,  and  responded. 

Franklin  Philp  was  called,  but  failed  to  respond. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Philp  addressed  me  a  letter.  I  do  not  know  whether  I 
have  it  or  not. 

Mr.  WiLSOx.  Mr.  Gooding  (addressing  the  marshal  who  was  standing  near 
the  judge)  I  gave  you  a  letter  which  he  addressed  to  me.  I  will  state  to  the 
court  that  he  addressed  me  a  letter  saying,  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  hi  m 
to  leave  the  city  immediately  on  mutters  of  importance,  and  asking  to  be  ex- 
cused. 

The  letter  was  handed  to  the  court  by  the  mai'shal. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Philp  came  to  see  me  last  night,  and  I  referred  him  to  the 
attorneys  on  cither  side ;  and  now  it  seems  that  he  wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wilson 
stating,  that  he  was  engaged  in  public  business  which  would  require  him  to  leave 
iu  this  morning's  traiu.     I  suppose  he  is  not  here. 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  is  not  here,  I  infer  from  that  letter,  although  I  told  him 
that  he  would  incur  a  grave  responsibility  by  going  away. 

The  Court.  I  told  liim  he  had  better  see  Mr.  Merrick  and  Mr.  Carringtou, 
or  Mr.  Wilson. 

^[r.  Merrick.  He  saw  me,  your  honor,  and  I  told  him  that  I  did  not  feel 
that  we  had  the  power  to  excuse  him,  and  that  the  proper  course  for  him  to 
pursue  would  be  to  present  himself  here  this  morning  to  answer  to  his  name, 
and  to  present  to  your  honor  for  your  consideration  the  excuse  he  made  to  me. 
He  stated  to  me  that  his  excuse  was  that  at  present  being  engaged  in  public 
business,  some  matters  connected  with  the  pirblic,  he  had,  in  execution  of  some 
of  his  business,  already  taken  passage  for  Europe  in  a  steamer  to  sail  some 
time  in  July. 

The  Marshal.  I  would  state  that  Mr.  Philp  was  served  in  person. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  55 

The  Court.  "Well,  he  is  not  here — proceed  to  call  the  other  names. 

The  DiSTiCT  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  it  seems  to  me  there  ought 
to  be  some  process  to  enforce  the  attendance  of  Mr.  Philp.  He  has  been  ad- 
vised by  the  assistant  prosecuting  officer,  and  by  counsel  representing  the  pris- 
oner, that  he  should  be  here  to  respond  to  the  summons  of  the  court,  and  if  he 
had  any  reason  to  present  why  he  should  be  excused,  to  offer  it  then.  While  I 
have  been  disposed  to  accommodate  gentlemen,  as  far  I  can,  consistently  with 
my  sense  of  duty  to  the  public,  I  now  feel  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  me 
to  interpose.  This  is  a  very  important  and  solemn  trial,  and  surely  every 
American  citizen  should  feel  that  there  is  an  obligation  resting  upon  him  to 
respond  to  any  call  Avhich  is  made  upon  hinl  by  the  court.  I  cannot  remain 
silent  when  the  case  is  presented  here  of  a  gentleman  who  has  been  served  with 
process  by  the  court  failing  to  appear  in  consequence  of  mere  private  ar- 
rangements, which  would  be  disturbed  by  his  appearing  in  court  in  answer  to 
its  summons. 

The  Court.  Do  you  ask  for  an  attachment  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  I  do  ask  for  an  attachment  against  him. 

The  Court.  Let  the  attachment  issue. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Where  is  he  1 

Mr.  Wilson.  His  letter  states  that  he  Avas  going  to  New  York. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  he  has  gone  to  New  York  1 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  presume  so. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  wish  the  attachment  issued  and  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  marshal  of  the  District,  and  then  I  will  feel  it  my  duty  to  take 
whatever  steps  may  be  necessary  to  vindicate  the  power  of  the  court,  and  to 
enforce  his  appearance. 

The  Marshal,  At  what  time  shall  the  attachment  be  returnable  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  Immediately. 

George  H.  Plant  was  called,  but  failed  to  respond. 

The  Court,  I  have  a  note  upon  my  table  from  Mr.  Plant,  in  which  he  says: 
"  I  am  subpoenaed  by  the  marshal  to  court  to-day.  I  am  advised  by  my  physi- 
cian that  I  am  too  unwell  to  attend,  and  hope  the  court  will  excuse  me." 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  will  you  be  kind  enough  to 
let  me  see  that  letter.  While  I  am  not  disposed,  for  a  moment,  to  discredit  any 
statement  which  Mr.  Plant  may  make,  orally  or  in  writing,  I  submit  that  it  is 
his  duty  to  appear  in  person  before  the  court,  in  obedience  to  the  summons,  if 
he  possibly  can  do  so.  If  not,  I  submit  that  it  is  his  duty  to  send  to  your  honor 
a  certificate  of  the  physician.  Surely,  sir,  if  he  was  unable  personally  to  ob- 
tain that,  he  has  friends  who  would  do  him  that  favor, 

I  again  say  that,  in  any  criminal  case  and  surely  in  a  case  of  this  importance 
(where  every  one,  although  willing  to  do  his  duty,  I  hope  desires  that  the  duty 
of  serving  as  a  juror  may  fall  upon  some  one  else,)  should  appear  in  person,  or 
he  should  satisfy  the  court  of  his  inability  personally  to  attend  in  the  manner 
which  this  court  has  always  heretofore  required.  1  hope  your  honor  will  not  act 
in  this  case  in  determining  upon  the  excuses  of  jurors  upon  written  communica- 
tions of  this  kind. 

The  Court.  The  gentleman  who  handed  me  this  letter  was  informed  by  me 
that  such  a  letter  would  not  do;  that  nothing  other  than  the  certificate  of  his  phy- 
sician, stating  his  inability  to  attend  on  account  of  his  illness,  would  .'satisfy  the 
court.  Perhaps  it  may  be  that  such  a  certificate  may  be  coming  forthwith ; 
but  it  has  not  reached  here  yet. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  can  pass  on. 

The  DiSTicT  Attorney.  I  will  only  say,  sir,  that  if  it  is  not  coming  forth- 
with I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  ask  for  an  attachment. 

The  Court.  Very  well,  the  attachment  shall  issue. 

The  Clerk.  Shall  I  issue  one  now  ? 


56  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H     SURRATT. 

The  OoiRT.  Yes,  you  may  issue  one  now,  but  defer  awhile  sending  it  out. 

Reuben  B.  Clark  was  called,  and  responded. 

John  Van  Res  wick  was  called,  and  responded. 

Samuel  P.  Brow.v  was  called,  when  he  rose  and  said :  I  will  state  to  the  court 
that  I  have  been  out  of  health  (or  some  time,  and  under  the  treatment  of  a  physi- 
cian, and  I  have  a  certificate  here  which  I  presume  will  be  sufficient. 

The  certificate  was  then  read,  as  follows  : 

"Washington,  D.  C,  June  13,  1867. 
"  I  certify  that  Mr.  S.  P.  Brown  has  been  under  my  treatment  for  a  disease  of 
his  kidneys,  which,  in  my  opinion,  renders  him  unable  to  endure  the  fatigue 
attendant  upon  being  a  juryman. 

"JAMES  B.  KEASBY,  M.  D" 

Mr.  Brown.  I  will  add,  that  I  have  been  out  of  health  for  some  time,  and  it 
is  impossible  for  me  to  sit  very  long  at  any  one  pei-iod. 

The  Court.  I  understand  something  about  that  Mr.  Brown.  I  cannot  object 
to  excusing  you,  sir.     You  are  excused. 

Z.  D.  Gilman  was  called,  and  responded. 

Joseph  F.  Brown  was  called,  and  responded. 

Zeuas  C.  Robbins  was  called,  and  responded. 

Cornelius  Wendell  was  called,  and  responded. 

Valentine  Harbaugh  was  called,  and  responded. 

The  Court.  I  have  here  a  certificate  from  Dr.  Elliott,  stating  that  Mr.  Har- 
baugh is  physically  unable  to  discharge  the  duties  incumbent  upon  a  juror.  The 
certificate  adds:  "He  is  now  under  my  professional  care.  In  addition  to  this, 
he  has  two  members  of  his  family  sick,  who  require  his  constant  attention." 

Mr.  Bradley.  Mr.  Harbaugh  has  private  family  matters  which  need  not  be 
disclosed  publicly  here.  They  are,  to  my  personal  knowledge,  suflicieut  to 
justify  the  court  in  excusing  him. 

The  Court.  I  am  satisfied  that  this  is  a  case  where  the  gentleman  ought  to 
be  excused. 

Joseph  Gerhardt  was  called,  and  responded. 

Mr.  Gerhardt.  If  your  honor  please,  I  do  not  think  I  am  qualified.  I  do 
not  pay  any  taxes  on  real  estate.  Besides,  sir,  I  do  not  hear  well.  Persons 
have  to  speak  very  loud  to  me  in  order  to  enable  me  to  hear  them. 

The  District  Attorney.  Is  your  hearing  defective  with  regard  to  both  of 
your  ears  ? 

Mr.  Gerhardt.  Yes,  sir;  but  one  a  little  more  than  the  other.     (Laughter.) 

The  District  Attorney.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  legal  objection  to 
General  Gerhardt,  although  he  does  not  pay  any  tax  on  real  estate,  which  I  am 
surprised  to  hear,  because  I  thought  he  was  a  very  substantial  and  energetic 
citizen,  and  thought,  therefore,  he  had  accumulated  a  considerable  amount  of 
real  estate  ;  but  he  does  pay  tax  on  personal  property,  and  I  think,  although  I 
have  €1  very  feeble  voice  myself,  that  I  can  make  myeelf  heard. 

Mr.  Bradlev,  (in  rather  a  low  tone.)  He,  sitting  in  the  jury  box,  could  not 
hear  half  of  what  was  said  by  a  witness  standing  at  this  desk,  (a  distance  of  ten 
feet.)  lie  can  hardly  hear  me  now.  (Mr.  Gerhardt  standing  at  this  time  between 
three  and  four  feet  from  Mr.  B.) 

Mr.  Gerhardt.  That  is  so,  your  honor.    (Prolonged  laughter.) 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  hasn't  heard  half  of  Avhat  I  said,  although  I  spoke  loud 
enough  to  be  heard  away  outside  of  this  bar ;  he  only  guessed  at  it.  (Laughter.) 
However,  it  is  none  of  my  business. 

The  Court.  How  long  have  you  been  deaf? 

Mr.  Gerhardt.  I  am  not  quite  deaf,  but  I  do  not  hear  well. 

The  Court.  I  guess  you  can  be  made  to  hear,  Mr.  Gerhardt. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Yes,  sir;  we  will  endeavor  to  speak  loud  enough. 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  57 

Mr.  Gerhardt.  I  will  state  further,  that  cliirin<;-  the  war  I  was  so  disabled 
as  to  render  it  impossible  for  me  to  sit  any  great  length  of  time.  (Suppressed 
laughter.) 

The  CoiRT.  Oh,  I  guess  you  can  manage  to  get  along,  ^[r.  Gerhardt.  Pro- 
ceed with  the  next,  Mr.  Clerk. 

Horatio  N.  Easby  was  called,  and  responded. 

W.  W.  ]\[ooRE,  being  called,  said  : 

I  beg  to  be  excused.  I  am  not  at  all  well.  I  have  been  unwell  for  two  or 
three  weeks ;  but  the  principal  reason  that  I  would  urge  why  1  desire  to  be 
excused  is,  that  I  am  engaged  in  a  business  that  will  really  snffer  if  I  am  required 
to  sit  through  this  case.  It  is  not  a  business  of  my  own,  but  one  of  public 
accommodation.  The  other  party  who  is  there  in  the  management  of  it  is  at 
present  absent  from  the  city.  It  is  the  Metropolitan  railroad  that  I  refer  to  as 
the  business  which  I  am  engaged  in  managing.  , 

The  District  Attornen'.  IIow  old  are  you — are  you  sixty-five  ? 

Mr.  Moore.  I  am  not  quite  that. 

The  Dlstrict  Attorney.  I  think  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  state 
that  there  is  no  legal  objection  to  Captain  j\[oore,  and  the  excuse  is  hardly  suf- 
ficient. I  think,  upon  reflection,  the  juror  himself  will  see  it;  because,  if  the 
court  in  ruling  upon  these  excuses  is  to  be  governed  by  private  considerations — 
the  fact  that  the  juror  will  be  subjected  to  private  inconvenience,  that  his  busi- 
ness or  the  business  of  his  employer  will  suffer — it  is  difficult  to  imagine  when 
a  jury  can  be  had  in  this  case. 

The  Court.  Yes ;  as  much  as  I  would  desire  to  accommodate  Mr.  Moore,  he 
will  have  to  commend  himself  to  me  by  very  strong  considerations  as  to  the 
injury  that  would  result  to  his  business  from  his  absence  before  I  can  consent 
to  excuse  him  on  that  ground.  If  he  should  bring  a  certificate  from  his  physi- 
cian that  it  would  be  seriously  prejudicial  to  his  health,  it  might  be  satisfactory. 

Mr.  ]\Ioore.  I  could  easily  have  obtained  a  certificate  if  I  had  known  tlie 
rules  of  proceeding  here.  I  can  get  it,  your  honor,  as  soon  as  I  can  see  my 
physician. 

The  Court.  Very  well,  Mr.  Moore.     Mr.  Clerk,  pass  on  to  the  next. 

Thomas  Perry  was  called,  and  responded. 

W.  P.  DoIp.  was  called,  but  failed  to  respond. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Dole  met  me  this  morning  on  my  way  to  the  court-house 
and  put  into  my  hands  this  letter : 

"Washington,  June  13,  1867. 

"Sir:  Being  summoned  as  a  juror  to  attend  your  court,  I  beg  leave  to  say 
that  I  am  not  a  citizen  of  the  District,  and  never  was. 
"  Respectfully,  yours, 

"WILLIAM  P.  DOLE. 
"  Hon.  George  P.  Fisher." 

Mr.  Wilson.  He  is  an  owner  of  real  estate. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  will  ask  for  au  attachment  against  Mr.  Dole  ; 
that  is  the  only  response  I  can  make. 

The  Court.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  a  taxpayer.  He  said  he  paid  tax  on  an 
unimproved  lot  that  he  had ;  that  makes  him  a  taxpayer.  Whether  be  is  a 
resident  here  or  not  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  understand  he  has  recently  purchased  a  lot,  and  intends  sooa 
to  build  a  house  on  it.     He  can  answer  for  himself  when  he  comes. 

The  Court.  Yes  ;  let  the  attachment  issue. 

The  Marshal.  There  is  one  other  that  I  have  summoned;  his  name  is  J. 
H.  Crane.  He  was  summoned  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Mattingly,  who  was  excused 
by  your  honor  because  of  being  over  sixty- five  years  of  age. 


58  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

J,  H.  Crane  was  then  called,  and  responded. 

The  calling  of  the  list  having  been  concluded  Mr.  Elvans  said:  I  neglected 
to  state  to  your  honor  when  my  name  was  called,  that  within  two  years  past  I 
have  served  a  full  term  as  a  grand  juror.  If  your  honor  will  allow  me  I  will 
state,  that  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  made  at  that  time  as  to  wiiether  the  service 
which  I  had  thus  rendered  would  exempt  me  from  further  service  for  two  years 
I  understood  your  honor  to  say  it  would.  I  would  ask  your  honor  whether  I 
understood  properly,  and  whether,  if  so,  I  am  not  exempt  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  that  were  so,  we  would  have  to  take  off  nearly  half  of  this 
list. 

The  District  Attormey.  I  do  not  think,  your  honor,  that  talesmen  are  ex- 
empt because  of  such  service.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  difficulty  about  it, 
sir.  I  hold  in  my  hands  the  12th  statutes,  p.  428.  The  3d  section  of  the  Act 
of  June  16,  1862,  with  which  your  honor  is  familiar,  declares  who  shall  be 
exempted.     It  s'ays ; 

"  Be  it  further  enacted,  that  the  mayors  of  the  cities  of  Washington  and 
Georgetown,  all  judicial  officers,  salaried  officers  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  commissioners  of  police,  and  those  connected  with  the  police  or  fire 
department^  counsellors  and  attorneys-at-law,  ministers  of  the  gospel  and 
priests  of  every  denomination,  practising  physicians,  surgeons,  keepers  of  hos- 
pitals, asylums,  alms-houses,  or  other  charitable  institutions  created  by,  or  under 
the  laws  relating  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  captains  and  masters,  and  other 
persons  employed  on  vessels  navigating  the  waters  of  said  district,  and  keepers 
of  public  ferries,  shall  be  exempted  from  jury  duty,  and  their  names  shall  not 
be  placed  in  the  list  aforesaid." 

Then,  your  honor  will  observe  in  the  1st  section,  what  the  law  says,  in  refer- 
ence to  those  who  have  rendered  juiy  duty.     I  will  read  it : 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  Thut  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
register  of  Washington  city,  and  of  the  respective  clerks  of  the  city  of  George- 
town, and  the  levy  court  of  Washington  county,  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
within  one  month  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  on  or  before  the  first  day  of 
February  in  each  year  thereafter,  to  make  a  list  of  such  of  the  white  male  citi- 
zens, taxpayers,  residing  within  their  respective  jurisdictions,  as  they  shall 
judge  best  qualified  to  serve  as  jurors  in  the  courts  of  the  said  District  in  which 
the  lists  may  be  included,  in  the  discretion  of  the  officer  making  the  same,  the 
names  of  the  previous  year,  but  who  did  not  serve  as  jurors,  and  the  lists  thus 
made  by  the  register  and  clerks  aforesaid,  shall  be  kept  by  them  respectively, 
and  be  delivered  over  to  their  successors  in  office." 

By  implication  it  would  seem  that  these  officers  who  are  charged  with  the 
duty  of  making  out  the  list,  and  from  which  the  jury  are  to  be  selected,  shall 
be  confined  to  those  who  had  not  served  within  the  time  prescribed  before  these 
lists  were  prepared.  But  when  talesmen  are  summoned  there  is  no  limitation, 
as  your  honor  will  obsei've,  by  reference  to  the  other  sections  of  the  Act,  which 
has  t)een  so  frequently  brought  to  the  attention  of  your  honor. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  provision  in  the  act  exempting 
Mr.  El  vans. 

The  District  Attorney.  Now,  if  your  honor  please,  I  understand  that 
Captain  Moore,  one  of  the  jurors  who  requested  your  honor  to  excuse  him, 
stated  that  he  could  obtain  a  certificate  from  a  physician,  of  his  physical  ina- 
bility to  act  in  that  capacity,  and  by  the  permission  of  the  marshal,  I  believe, 
he  has  gone  to  get  a  certificate. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  was  my  fault  that  he  went.  I  understood  the  court  to  say 
that  he  had  better  go  quick. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  am  not  complaining  of  the  fact  that  lie  has  gone 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  a  certificate,  but  I  simply  desire  to  say,  although  it 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT.  59 

may  not  be  necessary  in  his  particular  case,  that  I  hope  your  honor  will  not 
act  upon  the  written  certificate  of  a  physician,  but  will  satisfy  your  own  judg- 
ment as  to  the  capacity  of  the  juror  to  serve,  from  the  personal  examination  of 
the  juror,  and  of  the  physician  upon  whose  opinion  he  relies.  They  should 
both  appear  before  the  court.  Your  honor  should  be  satisfied  from  your  own 
examination,  aided  as  far  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to  aid  you,  by  cross-examina- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  counsel  who  appear  for  either  the  government  or  the 
accused. 

The  Court.  I  shall  examine  as  I  have  done  in  all  these  cases,  by  putting 
questions  to  them  myself. 

Mr.  Braulev.  There  have  now  been  seven  jurors  excused  out  of  the  twenty- 
six.     We  want  to  get  them  before  the  panel  is  attempted  to  be  selected  for  this  case. 

The  Court.  Is  there  any  objection  to  that? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  believe  there  is  no  objection,  sir. 

The  Court.  A  juryman  has  been  sommoned  in  the  place  of  Mr.  Mattingly, 
who  was  excused,  being  disqualified  by  over  age. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  six  only  are  to  be  summoned. 

The  Court.  Gentlemen  the  marshal  informs  me  that  it  will  probably  take 
him  until  about  one  o'clock  before  he  can  have  the  parties  here  who  will  be 
summoned  in  the  place  of  those  who  have  been  excused.  If  you  have  no  ob- 
jection we  will  take  a  recess  until  that  time,  and  let  these  gentlemen  who  are 
here,  and  who  have  some  business  to  attend  to,  go  until  that  time. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Before  your  honor  takes  any  action  in  the  matter,  I  would 
like  to  consult  with  Mr.  Bradley  in  relation  to  something  that  may  fixcilitate  our 
action  after  one  o'clock. 

After  a  brief  consultation,  Mr.  Merrick  said :  What  we  were  going  to  suggest 
to  your  honor  is  this  :  That  whilst  the  jury,  of  course,  in  accordance  with  the 
suggestion  of  the  court,  can  leave  the  room  until  the  time  indicated,  we  on  both 
sides  think  that  it  will  hasten  the  matter  if  the  marshal,  instead  of  simply 
bringing  in  at  one  o'clock,  seven  jurors  to  supply  the  place  of  those  excused, 
would  bring  in  about  twenty,  in  view  of  the  fact  which  has  become  apparent 
that  a  great  many  will  seek  to  be  excused.  One  juror  who  is  present  has  indi- 
cated to  your  honor  an  excuse,  which  will  have  to  be  considered  when  he  comes 
upon  his  voire  dire,  and  which  will  probably  show  him  to  be  disqualified,  and 
we  do  not  know  iiow  far  that  examination — on  the  voire  dire — of  the  others 
may  thin  the  panel. 

Mr.  PiERRKPOMT.  I  think  we  quite  agree  to  that,  your  honor,  if  it  is  within 
the  law,  and  I  suppose  it  is,  though  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  about  it. 

The  Court.  1  am  rather  doubtful  about  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Your  honor  will  pardon  me,  but  by  turning  to  the  act  of  De- 
cember, 1865,  I  think  you  will  find  an  exposition. 

The  Court.  Let  us  see  what  that  act  is,  because  this  7th  section  only  gives 
the  power  to  order  a  sufficient  number  of  jurors  to  make  up  the  panel. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  have  ordered  that,  and  now  as  I  understand  it,  it  i.s  left* 
to  the  discretion  of  the  court  to  summon  as  many  more  as  may  be  necessary. 

The  Court.  I  am  doubtful,  ]\Ir.  Bradley,  and  I  do  not  know  whether  we  had 
not  better  go  on,  unless  there  is  something  in  that  act,  and  examine  these  gen- 
tlemen upon  their  voire  dire,  so  as  to  get  what  you  can  from  this  panel  which 
has  already  been  made  up.  I  think  that  would  be  the  legitimate  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding with  this  business. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  cannot  proceed,  if  your  honor  please,  to  select  a  jury  until 
the  panel  of  twenty-six  is  complete.     We  have  the  right  out  of  that  twenty-six. 

The  Court.  I  see  the  act  of  ISGS'  does  not  bear  upon  this  question  at  all. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  have  not,  if  your  honor  please,  the  slightest  doubt  of 
their  right  to  have  the  fullest  panel,  but  there  cannot  certainly  be  any  irregu- 
larity in  going  on. 


60  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  object  to  that.     "We  require  the  panel  to  be  full. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  have  not  a  word  to  say  if  they  require  it. 

The  Court.  Then  there  is  no  other  course  left  but  for  the  court  to  take  a 
recess  until  one  o'clock. 

The  court  thereupon  took  a  recess  until  the  hour  named. 

A  few  minutes  after  one  o'clock  the  court  was  reconvened,  when 

The  Court  said:  Que  of  the  parties  who  served  the  subpoena  on  Mr.  Plant 
yesterday,  brings  me  this  note: 

"Washington,  D.  C,  June  1, 1S67. 
"  I  certify  that  I  have  occasionally  attended  Mr.  George  H.  Plant  with  nephre- 
tis,  brought  about  by  fotigue  and  exposure.     I  would  judge  that  the  duties 
of  a  juror  would  tend  to  aggravate  his  disease. 

"JOHN  C.RILEY,  M.Dr 

The  Court.  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Plant  is  in  the  city  or  not. 

The  Marshal.  No,  sir;  he  is  in  Baltimore. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Moore  hands  me  the  following  certificate : 

"Washington,  D.  C,  June  13,  1867. 

"  This  is  to  certify  that  Mr.  W.  W.  Moore  has  been  for  many  years  a  patient 
of  mine,  and  from  my  knowledge  of  his  constitution  and  condition  of  health  I 
would  regard  him  as  unfit  for  performing  the  duties  of  a  juror  without  the  risk 
of  being  himself  injured  by  the  confinement,  and  the  peculiar  duties  which 
would  devolve  upon  him. 

"  AV.  P.  JOHNSON,  M.  D." 

The  Court.  Upon  examination  of  Mr,  Moore  I  do  not  think  that  he  would 
be  able  to  withstand  the  fatigue  of  a  trial  of  this  sort,  and  I  purpose  excusing 
him.  I  have  no  doubt  he  would  make  a  most  excellent  juryman,  if  he  could 
only  stand  the  fatigue.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

The  Clerk  then  proceeded  to  call  the  names  of  the  six  additional  j  nrors  who 
had  been  summoned  during  the  recess. 

AVilliam  ]\I.  Shuster  was  called,  but  failed  to  respond. 

Robert  Ball  was  called,  and  responded. 

Henry  M.  Knight  was  called,  and  responded. 

John  F.  Ellis  was  called,  and  responded. 

Samuel  Fowler  was  called,  but  failed  to  respond. 

Terrence  Drury  was  called,  and  responded. 

The  Clerk.  Four  out  of  the  six  answer,  your  honor. 

The  Court.  What  are  the  names  of  the  absent  ones. 

The  Clerk.  Mr.  Shuster  and  Mr.  Fowler  do  not  respond. 

The  Marshal.  Mr.  Shuster  was  served  by  copy.  He  was  not  at  his  house, 
but  his  wife  expected  him  there  between  twelve  and  one.  He  was  served  with 
a  copy,  and  it  may  be  that  he  has  not  received  it.  As  to  Mr.  Fowler,  he  was 
served  in  person. 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  are  two  Mr.  Samuel  Fowlers;  which  one  is  it? 

The  Marshal.  The  banker. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  ask  for  an  attachment  against 
Mr.  Fowler. 

The  Court.  Let  the  attachment  issue. 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  will  be  here  I  am  sure,  for  he  is  a  law-abiding  citizen. 

The  Marshal.  I  would  here  state,  your  honor,  that  Mr.  Dole,  for  whom  an 
attachment  was  issued,  is  not  to  be  found,  and  that  Mr.  Plant,  for  whom  an  at- 
tachment was  also  issued,  has  gone  to  Baltimore. 

The  court  then  directed  the  clerk  to  call  over  the  names  of  those  who  had 
responded,  and  were  present. 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.   SUERATT.  61 

The  Clerk  proceeded  to  call  as  follows  : 

William  B.  Todd,  William  H.  Tenney,  John  R.  Elvans,  Thomas  Blagdeu, 
Riley  A.  Shinn,  Richard  M.  Hall. 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  has  gone  to  get  a  certificate  of  attorney. 

Thomas  J.  S.  Perry,  Reuben  B.  Clark,  John  Van  Reswick,  Zadok  D.  Gilman, 
Joseph  F.  Brown,  Zenas  C.  Robbins,  Cornelius  Wendell,  Joseph  Gerhardt. 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  is  with  his  physician  in  the  ante-chamber. 

Horatio  N.  Easby,  Thomas  Berry,  John  H.  Crane,  William  M.  Shuster, 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  is  not  present. 

Robert  Ball,  Henry  M.  Knight,  John  F.  Ellis. 

The  Clerk.  Including  those  who  have  been  summoned,  but  who  are  not  here 
at  this  moment,  there  are  twenty-four,  your  honor. 

Mv.  Pierrepont.  Does  your  honor  iind  that  there  would  be  any  objection  to 
having  an  order  made  that  some  fifteen  or  twenty,  or  some  larger  number,  be 
subpoenaed,  if  we  on  both  sides  consent  to  itl  We  are  all  desirous  of  consent- 
ing to  that,  either  orally,  or  in  writing. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  will  not  appear  of  record,  sir,  how  many  are  summoned, 
if  there  are  enough  summoned  to  make  up  the  panel. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  That  is  all  we  want  on  both  sides. 

The  Clerk.  0,  yes,  it  will  appear  of  record.  The  subsequent  order  to  fill 
the  vacancies  which  have  occurred,  will  appear. 

JNIr.  PiERREPONT.  Would  there  be  any  error  in  it  if  it  did  so  appear? 

The  Court.  I  fear  there  might  be. 

Mr.  PiEUREPOXT.  Well,  sir,  we  do  not  want  any  error.  We  only  want  to 
show  that  we  on  both  sides  are  anxious  to  facilitate  the  matter  in  any  way  we 
can. 

The  Court.  As  I  understand,  all  the  jurors  who  have  been  properly  sum- 
moned answer,  with  the  exception  of  two,  ]\[essrs.  Dole  and  Plant,  who  are 
returned  non  est. 

'Sir.  Samuel  Fowler  being  brought  in  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  under 
attachment, 

The  Court  said:  Mr.  Fowler,  you  were  attached  for  non-obedience  to  the 
summons  of  the  court  to  be  here  at  one  o'clock. 

Mr.  Fowler.  I  meant  no  disrespect  to  the  court,  sir;  I  intended  to  come  in 
time,  but  mistook  the  hour. 

The  Court.  I  suppose  we  will  have  to  excuse  you  under  those  circum- 
stances, as  you  are  pretty  near  the  time.     (It  being  then  half-past  one. — Rep.) 

The  Court.  You  have  twenty-two  jurors,  gentlemen,  now  in  attendance  for 
this  panel.     You,  therefore,  require  four  more. 

The  Clerk.  An  attachment  is  out  for  two — Messrs.  Dole  and  Plant. 

The  Court.  Yes;  but  those  attachments  cannot,  in  all  probability,  be  served 
to-day. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  panel  would  be  one  short  even  were  those  who  have  been 
attached  here. 

The  Court.  Yes,  sir;  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Moore  has  been  excused  since. 

Mr.  Merrkk.  We  want  one  more,  anyhow. 

The  Marshal.  We  can  get  him  in  twenty  minutes,  I  think. 

William  Morrison,  J.  Russell  Barr,  and  Jedediah  Giddings  next  appeared  in 
court,  in  obedience  to  the  summons  of  the  marshal  completing  the  panel  of 
twenty-six  jurors. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  your  honor  please,  we  are  ready  to  proceed  to  empanel  the 
jury.  Before  doing  so,  however,  we  think  it  our  duty,  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner, 
to  tile  our  challenge  to  the  present  array.  Your  honor  has  virtually  decided  the 
question,  and  we  do  not  desire  to  take  up  anytime  in  its  argument.  We  simply 
Avish  that  it  may  be  filed,  so  that  it  may  be  passed  upon. 

Mr.  Bradley  then  handed  to  the  clerk  the  following  challenge: 


62    -  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.   SURE  ATT. 

"  In  the  Supieme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  United  States  vs. 
John  H.  Surratt.     In  the  Criminal  Court,  March  term,  1867. 

"And  the  said  marshal  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  obedience  to  the  order 
of  the  court,  made  in  this  cause  on  the  12th  of  June  instant,  this  day  makes  re- 
turn that  he  hath  summoned,  and  now  hath  in  court  here,  twenty-six  jurors, 
talesmen,  as  a  panel  from  whicli  to  form  a  jury  to  try  the  said  cause,  and  the 
names  of  the  said  twenty-six  jurors  so  returned  being  called  by  the  clerk  of  said 
court,  and  they  having  answered  to  their  names  as  they  were  called,  the  said 
John  H.  Surratt,  by  his  attorneys,  doth  challenge  the  array  of  the  said  panel, 
because  he  saith  it  doth  plainly  appear  by  the  records  and  proceedings  of  the 
court  in  this  cause  that  no  jurors  have  ever  been  summoned  according  to  law  to 
serve  during  the  present  term  of  this  court;  that  no  panel  has  ever  been  lawfully 
returned  to  this  present  term  of  the  court,  and  no  names  of  jurors,  duly  and  law- 
fully summoned,  have  been  placed  in  the  box  provided  for  in  the  fourth  section 
of  the  act  of  Congress,  entitled,  "  An  act  providing  for  the  selection  of  jurors  to 
serve  in  the  several  courts  of  the  District,"  approved  16th  June,  1862,  on  or 
before  the  1st  of  February,  1867,  to  serve  for  the  ensuing  year,  wherefore  be 
prays  judgment  that  the  panel  now  returned  by  the  said  marshal,  and  now  in 
court  here,  be  quashed. 

"MERRICK,  BRADLEY  &  BRADLEY, 

'■'■  Attorneys  for  Surratt." 

After  consultation  on  the  part  of  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  United  States  and 
for  the  prisoner,  the  following  names  were  presented  to  the  court  as  having  been 
mutually  agreed  upon  as  the  jurors  in  the  case  : 

William  B.  Todd,  John  P.  Elvans,  Thomas  Blagden,  Richard  M.  Hall, 
Thomas  J.  S.  Perry,  William  H.  Sinister,  Z.  D.  Gilman,  Horatio  N.  Easby, 
Thomas  Berry,  Robert  Ball,  Samuel  Fowler,  and  J.  Russell  Barr,  all  of  whom, 
except  Mr.  Barr,  were  directed  to  appear  at  the  book  to  be  sworn  in  as  jurors. 

Mr.  Blagden,  (one  of  the  jurors.)  I  wish  to  repeat  the  objection  that  I  made 
this  morning,  that  I  feel  myself  unfit  to  act  as  juror  in  this  case.  I  have  both 
formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  upon  it. 

The  Court.  Have  you  formed  a  decided  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Blagden.  I  have  done  so,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT.  I  hope  your  honor  will  ascertain  whether  this  gentleman 
has  formed  such  an  opinion  that  he  would  not  be  governed  by  the  law  and  the 
evidence  as  it  may  be  brought  before  him.  He  has  not  heard  any  evidence  in 
the  case. 

The  District  Attor.nby.  I  may  say,  if  your  honor  please,  that  this  doc- 
trine of  the  gentleman  being  disqualified  to  act  as  a  juror  because  of  his  having 
expressed  an  opinion,  should  be  the  subject  of  inquiry  as  to  whether  he  has 
formed  an  opinion  on  all  the  evidence,  and  as  to  whether  he  would  not  be  pre- 
pared to  decide  according  to  the  law  and  evidence. 

The  Court.  If  he  is  sworn  on  his  voire  dire  I  will  try  to  ascertain  that  fact. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  do  not  care  to  have  that  done.  We  are 
willing  to  trust  this  gentleman  in  his  judgment  on  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Blagden.  If  the  court  please,  I  have  read  a  great  deal  upon  this  subject 
and  have  formed  my  opinion  very  decidedly. 

Mr.  Fowler,  (a  juror.)  That,  also,  is  my  case. 

Mr.  Gilman,  (a  juror.)  And  mine. 

Mr.  Perry,  (a  juror.)  And  mine;  and  besides,  I  am  opposed  to  capital  pun- 
ishment. 

Mr.  GiLAiAN.  I,  also,  am  opposed  to  capital  punishment. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Let  me  say  to  the  court  that  we  have  agreed,  upon  both 
sides,  not  to  ask  any  of  these  gentlemen  to  be  sworn  upon  their  voir  dire  until 
we  believe  they  are  such  men  as  will  render  a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  63 

law  and  the  evidence.     There  has  not  been  one  word  of  evidence  published, 
except  such  as  may  have  appeared  in  the  newspapers. 

The  Court.  One  gentleman  says,  however,  he  is  conscientiously  opposed  to 
capital  punishment. 

Mr.  PlERREPO.XT.  We  should  like  to  know  whether  his  scruples  would  go 
to  the  extent  that  he  could  not  conscientiously  bring  in  a  verdict  according  to 
the  law  and  the  evidence. 

The  Court.  That  would  be  a  proper  test  by  which  to  ascertain  the  extent 
of  his  conscientious  convictions. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  wish  these  gentlemen  would  consider  this  question  a  little 
in  the  light  of  a  duty  to  the  public.  The  counsel  on  both  sides  have,  with 
more  courtesy  towards  each  other,  such  as  I  have  never  seen  iu  the  whole 
course  of  my  experience,  tried  to  get  a  jury  of  eminent  citizens  who  were 
honest,  and  who  were  above  suspicion,  against  whose  verdict  nobody  could  raise 
a  whisper.  AVe  have  earnestly  desired  to  produce  that  result  and  had  hoped 
we  had  accomplished  it.  We  think  jurymen  owe  something  to  the  community 
in  which  they  live. 

Mr.  Shuster,  (one  of  the  jurors.)  While  appreciating  the  compliment  given  to 
us,  I  think  that  probably  some  of  us,  and  I  most  assuredly,  have  formed  and 
entertained  decided  opinions  in  regard  to  this  case.  I  speak  for  myself,  and 
others,  as  the  question  has  been  discussed  among  those  who  are  here  as  jurors. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Before  proceeding  further,  I  hope  the  court  will  ascertain 
from  the  jurors  who  suggest  conscientious  scruples  on  the  subject  of  capital 
punishment,  to  what  extent  his  conscientious  scruples  go. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  hope  I  may  do  something  to  facilitate  the  obtaining  of  this 
panel.  A  jury  sitting  iu  the  case  has  but  very  little  to  do  with  the  con- 
sequences of  their  verdict.  They  are  sworn  to  find  a  verdict  according  to  the 
law  and  evidence.  The  sentence  on  their  verdict  is  a  matter  which,  as  good 
citizens,  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  in  their  capacity  as  jurors.  If  they  are 
opposed  to  capital  punishment,  in  their  political  relations  to  the  government  as 
Citizens,  they  may  exert  their  influence  in  having  the  law  providing  for  capital 
punishment  modified;  but  as  jurors,  in  the  box,  they  have  nothing  to  do 
but  to  render  their  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

The  Court.  Still,  when  a  person  is  called  to  be  sworn  as  a  juror  in  a  capital 
case,  if,  on  the  one  hand,  he  shall  say  that  such  are  his  conscientious  scruples 
that  he  could  not,  no  matter  how  strong  the  evidence  might  be,  render  a  verdict 
of  guilly,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  court  would  not  be  justified  in  admitting  that 
juror  to  be  sworn.  While  on  the  other  hand,  if  he  declared  to  the  court  that 
while  he  has  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  party,  which  opinion  it  would  not  be  possible  or  probable  that  any 
evidence  might  overcome,  such  person  would  not,  I  think,  be  a  proper  person 
to  discharge  the  duties  devolving  upon  him  as  a  juror  by  the  law. 

]\Ir.  GiL.MAN,  (a  juror.)  I  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  publicly. 
I  am  decidedly  prejudiced  in  the  case.  I  do  not  think  any  evidence  I  might 
hear  would  change  my  view  upon  the  subject. 

A[r.  Eashv  (a  juror.)  I  beg  leave  to  say,  with  the  permission  of  the  court, 
that  I  think  it  nothing  more  than  fair  that  jurors  be  permitted  to  express  their 
opinion  upon  this  subject.  Tliis  case  has  been  discussed  in  the  newspapers  ; 
the  evidence  given  on  the  trial  of  the  other  conspirators  in  the  assassination  of 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  been  published,  and  for  myself  I  must  confess  that  I  am  deci- 
dedly biased  in  such  a  way  that  I  do  not  feel  that  I  could  do  justice  in  this 
case  ;  whether  I  might  do  injustice  to  the  prisoner,  or  to  the  public,  is  a  matter  I 
cannot  say  ;  but  I  do  not  feel  that  I  am  in  such  a  condition  of  mind  as  to  enable  me 
to  sit  upon  this  jury.  I  do  not  feel  like  taking  the  life  of  this  man  in  my  hands. 
I  feel  utterly  disqualified,  and  1  beg  to  protest  against  being  compelled  to  sit 
on  the  jury  in  this  case.     These  gentlemen  for  the  prosecution  and  defence  have 


64  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

arranged  the  matter  to  suit  themselves,  and  have  referred  in  a  very  complimen- 
tary manner  to  those  who  have  been  selected,  but  while  appreciating  compli- 
ments, we  cannot  say  for  ourselves  that  if  we  acquit  this  man  we  shall  be  per- 
fectly satisfied  with  the  verdict,  or  if  we  convict  him  we  shall  satisfy  our  own 
conscience.  For  myself  at  least,  I  repeat,  that  I  feel  myself  utterly  dis(iuali- 
fied  to  sit  upon  this  jury.  I  shoidd  feel  that  I  was  committing  murder  if  I 
should  bring  in  a  verdict  of  guilty,  and  I  might  feel  if  I  brought  in  a  verdict  of 
not  guilty,  that  I  was  instrumental  in  putting  forth  a  man  upon  the  public  who 
was  guilty  of  murder.  I  am  not  in  a  proper  state  of  mind  to  try  the  case.  If 
the  court  chooses,  however,  to  compel  me  to  sit  upon  the  jury  under  the  cir- 
cumstances ;  of  course  I  cannot  help  it,  I  should  hear  the  evidence  and  endeavor 
to  bring  in  a  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and  although  against 
my  own  convictions  of  right  and  wrong.  The  responsibility  will  rest  upon  some 
one  else,  not  upon  me. 

The  Court.  After  having  heard  what  has  been  said  by  the  jurors,  I  do  not 
see  any  other  course  than  to  put  each  man  upon  his  tmre  dire. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  our  opinion  upon  both  sides,  we  have  done  our  best 
upon  both  sides,  and  I  think  that  at  least  we  deserve  credit  for  the  spirit  we 
have  manifested. 

The  Court.  The  counsel  on  both  sides  deserve  great  credit  for  the  efforts 
they  have  made  on  this  occasion.  The  jurors  summoned  will  now  be  exam- 
ined in  order  upon  their  voire  dire. 

William  B.  Todd,  sworn  upon  his  voire  dire,  and  examined  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  II.  Surratt  ? 

A.  To  a  certain  extent  I  may  have  formed  an  opinion,  I  do  not  remember 
having  expressed  an  opinion. 

Q.  Would  that  opinion  have  such  a  influence  upon  your  judgment  that  you 
would  not  be  able,  upon  the  oath  you  have  taken  in  consequence  of  such  opinion, 
whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  it,  to  render  a  fair,  honest,  and  impartial  verdict 
upon  the  evidence  adduced  on  both  sides  in  the  trial  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in 
a  case  in  which  the  punishment  shall  be  death,  provided  the  evidence  should 
warrant  you  in  finding  such  a  verdict  ? 

A.  None  at  all. 

The  Court.  Does  the  counsel  for  the  United  States  wish  to  challenge  this 
juror. 

The  District  Attorney.  The  court  Avill  remember  that  this  question  arose 
a  short  time  ago  for  the  first  time  since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  Congress  giv- 
ing to  the  United  States  five  peremptory  challenges.  I  then  submitted  whether 
it  was  right  to  require  the  United  States  first  to  challenge  a  juror  if  it  desires  to 
do  so. 

The  Court.  The  law  is  silent  upon  that  subject,  and  in  this  instance  the  rule 
will  be  established  to  require  the  counsel  to  alternate  in  the  order  of  their  chal- 
lenge. 

No  challenge  having  been  made,  Mr.  Todd  was  accordingly  sworn  in  as  a 
juror. 

WiLLlAiM  H.  Tenney,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court  : 
Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expresed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  65 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
so  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  after  having  heard  all  the  tes- 
timony in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  think  I  could  give  as  good  a  verdict  as  if  I  had  never  heard  of  Surratt. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  be  such  as  would  satisfy 
you  of  the  guilt  of  the  party  accused  ? 

A.  I  have  none. 

Q.  But  you  say  you  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  party  accused  ? 

A.  I  have. 

By  the  District  Attorney 

Q.  Will  you  state  when  and  to  whom  you  have  expressed  that  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have  expressed  the  opinion  generally,  in  conversation  with  my  family, 

Q.  Upon  what  evidence  was  this  opinion  based  ? 

A.  Not  upon  any  evidence,  but  upon  common  report,  such  as  Surratts  leav- 
ing the  country. 

Q,  That  is  all  ? 

A.  That  is  all.     Not  upon  any  knowledge  of  the  facts   of  the  case,  or  from 
hearing  any  evidence  in   relation  to  it.     Upon  common  report,  such  as  Surratts 
escaping  from  the  country. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Have  you  not  talked  very  freely  on  the  subject,  and  expressed  your 
opinions  very  decidedly  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  have  expressed  any  opinion  publicly.  It  has  been  in 
casual  conversation  with  my  family.  It  may  be  possible  that  I  have  expressed 
it  to  others  than  to  members  of  my  family,  but  I  do  not  think  I  have. 

The  Court.  I  think,  under  the  ruling  of  Judge  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  Burr, 
this  juror  is  exceptionable. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  hope,  before  ruling  definitely  upon  that  question, 
the  court  will  hear  argument  upon  it.  I  had  prepared  myself  upon  this  ques- 
tion, knowing  it  to  be  one  of  great  importance.  In  a  case  of  such  notoriety  as 
this,  I  suppose  there  is  hardly  an  intelligent  man  in  the  whole  country  who  has 
not,  to  some  extent,  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion.  I  hope  your  honor  will 
not  consider  it  presumption  on  my  part,  in  asking  to  be  heard  upon  it. 

The  Court.  I  have  no  pride  of  opinion  upon  the  subject,  and  am  ready  to 
hear  argument  upon  it.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  better  to  go  throiigh  with  the  ex- 
amination of  the  other  jurymen,  and  let  this  question  be  argued  to-morrow.  Mr. 
Tenney  will  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

John  R.  Elvans,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  II.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
so  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

5 


66  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A,  Your  honor  will  allow  me  to  say  that  I  have  expressed  myself  so  deci- 
dedly, and  in  such  a  manner  as  would  lead  me  to  fear  the  impressions  of  the 
community  as  to  my  ability  or  disposition  to  render  a  fair  verdict.  I  believe, 
personally,  that  I  am  sufficiently  dispassionate  to  be  able  to  render  a  verdict  in 
accordance  with  the  evidence.  But  I  fear  the  effect  of  the  public  manner  in 
which  I  have  spoken  of  this  particular  case  on  the  community  as  to  my  dispo- 
sition to  give  a  fair  verdict. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  in  which  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  satisfy  you 
of  the  guilt  of  the  party  1 

A.  None  at  all. 

The  Court.  You  will  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

Thomas  BlagdEiX,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  or  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  should  fear  it  would. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  warrant  you 
in  that  finding  1 

A.  1  have  not. 

The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

Riley  A.  Shl\n,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Sun-att  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q,  You  have  bt)th  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii'. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  tlie  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  fear  it  would,  though  I  do  not  know  what  the  evidence  may  be. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  warrant  you 
in  such  finding? 

A.  Not  in  the  least. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  did  you  express  this  opinion  ? 
A.  While  the  trial  was  going  on  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  Upon  what  evidence  or  what  information  was  this  opinion,  which  you  ex- 
pressed, based  1 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  on  the  trial  of  the  others. 
Q.  Where  did  you  read  that  evidence  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  67 

A.  In  a  book  published  by  the  government.     I  have  one  of  tliose  books. 
The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

Richard  M.  Hall,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judguieut  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  There  are  some  facts  in  connection  with  the  case  that  1  think  would  very 
strongly  prejudice  my  mind. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
in  a  case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  is  such  as  to. 
warrant  that  finding  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  that  if  the  evidence  were  entirely  different  from  what  yoii' 
have  seen,  your  mind  has  been  so  far  affected  by  what  you  have  read  that  you 
would  be  unable  to  do  justice  in  this  case? 

A.  It  has  not  been  altogether  upon  the  evidence  I  have  read  that  I  have 
formed  an  opinion  about  it.  There  are  circumstances  that  always  attend  certain 
occurrences  which  produce  their  effect,  and  there  ai"e  some  circumstances  in  con- 
nection with  this  case  that  have  constantly,  from  the  beginning,  warped  my  judg- 
ment. I  do  not  know  whether  I  would  be  able  to  overcome  them.  It  would 
have  to  be  pretty  strong  evidence. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  your  prejudices  and  feelings  have  been  so  ex- 
cited that  you  would  be  unable  to  decide  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence,, 
upon  your  oath  a^  a  juror] 

A.  I  would,  if  compelled  to  sit  as  a  juror,  listen  to  the  facts  and  to  the  evi- 
dence, but  I  have  no  hesitancy  iu  saying  that  my  judgment  would  be  greatly 
influenced  by  circumstances. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  That  is  to  say  all  the  evidence  would  come  to  you  through  a  prejudiced 
medium  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

Thomas  J.  S.  Perry,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt? 

A.  I  think  I  did  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  two  years  ago. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  .Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  pri.souer,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 


68  TEIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
in  a  case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  satisfy 
you  of  such  finding  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  such  scruples  as  would  prevent  you  from  rendering  a  verdict 
of  guilty  in  such  case? 

A.  I  think  I  have. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged. 

Reuben  B.  Clarke,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have,  sir,  decidedly. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering 
a  verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  T  think  it  would  influence  my  opinion. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in 
a  case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  satisfy  you 
of  such  finding  ? 

A.  None  at  all. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  When  was  that  opinion  formed  and  expressed  ? 
A.  It  was  formed  in  the  early  part  of  the  trial  below  there. 
Q.  Upon  what  evidence  or  information  was  this  opinion  based  ? 
A.  From  common   rumor,  and  from  what   I  could   gather  by  being  at  the 
court  below. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  attend  tliat  trial  ? 

A.  About  three  or  four  days,  I  judge. 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  evidence  ? 

A.  I  read  the  evidence. 

Q.  The  whole  evidence  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  I  read  it  from  newspaper  reports  as  published  in  the  Intelligencer. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused  from  further  attendance. 

John  Van  Riswick,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  am  not  aware  that  1  ever  have  either  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty 
in  a  case  in  Avhich  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  warrant 
you  in  such  a  finding  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  Do  you  live  in  Washington  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Were  you  here  at  the  time  of  the  former  trial  of  the  conspirators  ' 

A.  I  was. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H     SURRATT.  69 

Q.  Did  you  read  the  evidence  on  that  trial? 

A.  I  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  express  or  form  any  opinion  as  to  the  efifect  of  it  ? 

A.  None,  so  far  as  the  prisoner  is  concerned. 

Q.  Atid  you  have  not  now  au  opinion  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence  ? 

A.  I  have  no  decided  opinion, 

Q.  You  have  not  said  anything  about  it  ? 

A.  I  am  not  aware  of  having  said  anything  in  regard  to  his  guilt  or  inno- 
cence. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  You  have  no  decided  opinion  upon  the  subject  at  all  ? 

A.  None,  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  any  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
other  conspirators  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  counsel  for  defence. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  the  court  please,  we  wish  to  argue  that  objection,  if  it  is 
insisted  upon.  The  prisoner  is  indicted  as  a  conspirator  with  others.  If  he  is 
not  guilty  with  others,  he  is  not  guilty  at  all. 

Mr.  Merrick.  It  would  be  exceedingly  difficult  to  get  a  jury  of  men  who 
had  not  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  those 
persons  who  are  charged  with  the  murder  of  the  late  President  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  other  parties  named  in  the  indict- 
ment as  conspirators  with  him  is  permitted  to  be  drawn  out.  I  apprehend  you 
could  not  get  a  jury  in  this  District,  and  scarcely  one  in  the  United  States.  I 
presume  there  is  scarcely  a  gentleman  in  the  United  States  who  has  not  formed 
and  expressed  an  opinion  that  Booth  shot  Lincoln.  I  apprehend  there  are  very 
few  who  have  not  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  that  the  mother  of  the  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  suffei-ed  death  without  competent  testimony  to  convict  her,  and 
so  we  might  go  through  in  an  inquiry  in  relation  to  all  the  others.  To  allow 
this  question  would  entirely  prevent  the  empaunelling  a  jury.  The  question 
for  this  jury  to  try,  is,  according  to  the  indictment,  whether  or  not  John  H. 
Surratt  is  guilty  of  the  murder  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  The  indictment  charges 
that  this  deed  is  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  between  various  parties  ;  that  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  was  one  of  the  conspirators,  and  that  he  committed  the 
murder.  The  parties  summoned  as  jurors  may  entertain  the  opinion  that  two, 
three,  four,  or  five  of  the  others  charged  in  the  indictment  as  conspirators,  did 
conspire,  and  at  the  same  time  may  not  have  formed  any  opinion  at  all  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  the  sixth  conspirator.  Or  the  party 
may  entertain  the  opinion  that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  in  a  conspiracy  of 
some  kind  or  other,  or  in  the  conspiracy  to  murder  the  President  of  the  L  nited 
States,  and  may  have  formed  no  opinion  as  to  whether,  in  point  of  fiict,  the 
prisoner  did  commit  the  murder.  I  therefore  submit  to  your  honor  that  the 
inquiry  made  by  the  District  Attorney,  is  an  inquiry  relating  to  matters  beyond 
the  limit  of  investigation,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  qualifications  of  a 
juror. 

Mr.  PiKRREPON'T.  If  your  honor  please,  before  we  knew  in  what  mode  we 
should  have  to  meet  this  question  of  challenge,  the  question  received  the  consid- 
eration of  my  learned  friend,  the  District  Attorney,  with  myself  and  his  associate. 
We  gave  it  a  very  careful  examination,  and  we  came  to  the  conclusion  founded, 
we  believe,  upon  competent  authority,  that  this  was  a  proper  qtu?stion  to  be 
asked  and  answered,  in  order  to  get  at  the  qualification  of  a  juror  in  a  case  of 
this  kind  under  such  an  indictment.  The  reason  urged  by  my  learned  friend 
against  it  is,  that  he  believes,  I  do  not  know  but  that,  he  asserts,  tliat  there  are 
very  few  in  the  United  States  wlio  do  not  believe  Mrs.  Surratt  was  illegally  ex- 
ecuted. Therefore  we  could  not  get  a  jury  competent  to  try  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar,  if  this  question  is  allowed  to  be  put. 


70  TRIAL   OF  JOHN  H,   SURRATT. 

Mr.  Merrick.  My  brother  will  allow  me  to  say  that  he  did  not  state  my 
entire  proposition.  I  said  there  were  few  intelligent  persons  in  the  United 
States  who  had  not  formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  Booth's  participa- 
tion in  the  killing-  of  Lincoln,  and  there  were  also,  I  presumed,  but  few  persons 
who  had  not  formed  an  opinion  that  Mrs.  Surratt  had  been  executed  upon 
insufficient  evidence. 

Mr.  PiERKFPONT.  Precisely;  that  is  the  very  statement,  except  that  my 
friend  has  made  it  a  little  stronger  than  I  did.  I  did  not  intend  to  overstate  it, 
as  there  is  nothing  gained  by  over  statement,  but  it  seems  I  did  not  come  up  to- 
the  mark.  My  friend  urged  this  i-eason  on  the  question  of  law  about  the  adr 
missibility  or  propriety  of  the  question  propounded  to  the  juror,  as  to  whethe 
your  honor  should  exclude  the  question.  Now,  I  do  not  suppose  that  is  any 
reason  at  all  in  law,  or  that  your  honors  will  give  it  a  moment's  considera- 
tion. Both  sides  of  this  case  have  certainly  acted  very  fairly.  I  have  no  com- 
plaint whatever  to  make  of  my  learned  friends.  They  have  acted  like  gentle- 
men, and  I  think  we  have  tried  to  act  honestly  on  both  sides  ;  that  we  have 
tried  to  get  an  honest  and  impartial  jury.  We  have  done  all  that  we  could,  and 
have  exhausted  our  power,  and  now  find  ourselves  thrown  back  upon  the  law. 
We  have  got  to  take  that,  and  we  intend  to  take  it.  Wherever  it  may  lead  us, 
however  long  it  may  take  us  to  get  at  it,  we  intend  to  pursue  it.  We  have  pre- 
pared ourselves  upon  this  very  question,  and  now,  if  your  honor  please,  if  you 
are  not  entirely  familiar  with  the  indictment,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  bring 
it  into  court.  The  indictment  charges  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  having  en- 
tered into  a  conspiracy  with  other  parties — Mrs.  Surratt,  Booth,  Herold,  Payne, 
i&c. — mentioned  by  name.  Now,  then,  if  a  juror  comes  here  and  says  he  does 
not  believe  these  other  conspirators  were  guilty,  there  could  not,  by  any  possi- 
bility, be  any  guilt  upon  the  part  of  this  party,  because  he  is  only  charged  as  a 
conspirator  witli  other  persons,  and  if  a  juror  has  made  up  his  mind  in  such  a 
way  as  that,  the  evidence  will  not  change  it ;  that  the  other  parties  charged  as 
conspirators  in  this  indictment  with  the  prisoner  were  innocent,  then  he  is  not 
in  a  frame  of  mind  such  as  will  qualify  him  to  act  as  a  juror,  because,  haviug 
expressed  that  opinion,  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  him  to  find  the  prisoner  guilty. 

The  District  Attorney.  In  addition  to  the  point  which  has  been  suggested 
by  my  learned  colleague,  that  this  question  is  entirely  relevant  to  the  indict- 
ment which  chari^es  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  being  engaged  in  a  conspiracy 
with  others  named,  I  will  suggest,  that  if  a  juror  has  expressed  an  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  any  of  the  parties  named  as  conspirators  in  the,  perpetration  of  the  crime 
alleged  in  the  indictment,  he  has  expressed  an  opinion  on  a  part  of  the  case,  and 
I  may  add,  in  regard  to  a  material  part  of  the  case — I  think  it  may  so  affect  the 
mind  of  the  juror  that  he  will  not  be  prepared  to  form  an  impartial  judgment, 
and  he  is  therefore  an  incompetent  juror  upon  that  ground.  Moreover,  not  only 
does  this  indictment  charge  that  the  prisoner  co-operated  with  others  in  the  per- 
perpetration  of  the  offence  named,  but  it  distinctly  alleges,  with  others  to  the 
jurors  unknown.  Surely,  then,  if  the  juror  has  expressed  an  opinion  in  regard 
to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  one,  does  he  not  by  implication,  however  he  may 
not  in  so  many  words  mention  the  name  of  the  pi'isoner,  express  some  opinion  in 
regard  to  his  guilt  or  innocence.  In  regard  to  the  character  of  the  offence  charged 
against  him  in  the  indictment,  if  the  juror  says,  "although  I  may  believe  (by 
way  of  illustration)  that  the  prisoner  did  commit  a  certain  crime,  my  opinion  is 
that  he  is  not  guilty  as  indicted,"  is  he  a  competent  juror  ?  If  the  party  is  not 
guilty  as  indicted,  however  great  the  crime  he  may  have  committed,  he  is  not 
guilty,  and  under  the  law  cannot  be  punished.  The  statement  of  this  juror 
is,  that  he  has  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  Avhich  goes  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  accused  as  indicted.  I  shall  have  something  to  say  of  this 
hereafter,  but  I  submit  that  such  a  statement  disqualifies  a  juror.  Again, 
if  your   honor  please,  you  observe  by   the  act  of  Congress,  March  3,  1865, 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  71 

]  3  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  500,  section  2,  the  government  of  the  United  States  is 
allowed  five  peremptory  challenges,  and  the  accused  twenty.  It  provides 
that  in  addition  to  the  challenges  of  the  array,  or  panel,  individual  jurors 
for  cause  or  favor  shall  be  tried  by  the  court  without  the  aid  of  triers.  Your 
honor,  then,  without  the  aid  of  triers,  shall  determine  Avhether  there  is  good 
cause  for  challenging  the  jurors.  If  your  honor  please,  the  question  of  fact 
which  was  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the  trier  is  transferred  by  express  legis- 
lation to  the  court ;  and  was  it  ever  heard  that  counsel  are  precluded  from 
asking  any  question  which  may  be  calculated  to  elicit  the  fact,  or  tending  to 
instruct  the  mind  of  the  court  in  regard  to  the  subject-matter  of  inquiry  1  You 
are  the  trier  as  to  whether  this  is  an  impartial  juror.  I  submit  that  you  cannot 
do  otherwise  than  to  allow  the  counsel  on  both  sides  to  ask  any  question  tend- 
ing to  elicit  the  state  of  mind  in  which  that  person  is  in  regard  to  the  issue  which 
would  be  submitted  to  him  if  sworn  as  a  juror.  Now,  is  not  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  co-conspirators  a  material  fact  ?  Is  it  not  relevant  ?  And  if  so, 
however  remotely  relevant  the  question  submitted  to  your  honor,  we  have  the 
right  to  elucidate  the  facts  upon  careful  examination.  The  examination  in  chief 
has  been  conducted  by  your  honor ;  your  honor  has  submitted  certain  questions 
to  this  juror,  and  his  answers  may  satisfy  your  honor's  mind  that  he  is  a  compe- 
tent or  incompetent  juror  ;  your  honor  is  the  tribunal  before  which  that  question 
of  fact  is  to  be  tried  ;  you  are  the  judge  ami  jury  both  ;  but  you  will  allow  us  to 
pursue  our  cross-examination  as  Ave  think  best,  beingonly  restrained  by  matters 
which  are  relevant.  Jf  I  should  ask  this  juror  an  entirely  irrelevant  question,  hav- 
ing no  connection  with  the  case,  you  would  properly  close  the  door  upon  me  ;  but 
will  your  lioiior  say  that  the  co-conspirators  with  whom  this  prisoner  is  alleged 
in  the  indictment  to  have  co-operated  are  not  connected  with  the  very  matter  we 
now  propose  to  investigate]  Surely  not.  And  therefore  we  have  the  right  to 
ask  these  questions ;  and  for  what  purpose  ?  It  would  be  a  hriitumfuhncn  for 
this  act  of  Congress  to  make  a  court  a  trier  if  we  are  not  permitted  to  ask  ques- 
tions tending  to  develope  good  cause  of  challenge  in  cases  where  good  cause  of 
challenge  may  be  shown  upon  a  cross-examination.  My  object  is  mei*ely  to 
enable  your  honor,  by  cross-examination,  to  determine  whether  this  juror  is 
qualified  or  not.  I  concur  with  the  learned  counsel  who  spoke  in  behalf  of  the 
prisoner,  that  it  would  be  exceedingly  ditficult  to  empanel  a  jury  if  the  principle 
enunciated  by  your  honor  is  correct.  Your  honor,  I  am  sure,  would  not  charge 
me  with  presumption  for  asking  to  be  heard  with  reference  to  the  question  of 
such  great  importance  before  making  your  final  decision ;  but,  sir,  I  do  most 
respectfully  submit  that  the  mere  forming  and  expressing  an  opinion  by  a  juror 
does  not  necessarily  disqualify  him. 

Mr.  Bkadlbv.  That,  however,  is  not  the  question  under  discussion  now. 

The  District  Attor.xev.  I  know  that  is  not  the  question,  but  I  referred  to 
it  incidentally.  We  surely  have  a  right  to  ask  a  juror  a  question  which  will 
bring  before  the  mind  of  the  court,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  whether  or  not 
this  juror  has,  in  point  offset,  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion.  My  desire  is 
to  enlighten  the  judgment  of  the  court  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  I  do  not  exactly  understand,  from  the  argument  of  the  coun- 
sel on  the  other  side,  what  it  is  that  we  are  going  to  try.  I  had  read  the  indict- 
ment with  some  care,  and,  until  what  has  fallen  from  my  learned  brothers  on  the 
other  side  to-day,  I  supposed  I  understood  for  what  offence  we  are  to  be  put  on 
trial;  but  after  what  has  been  said,  I  am  ignorant,  as  my  client  is,  for  what 
offence  he  is  to  be  tried.  But  I  will  assume  that  their  understanding  of  the 
indictment  is  just,  and  that  he  is  on  trial  for  conspiracy,  and  that  he  is  on  trial 
for  murder.  Ou  the  question  of  his  guilt  or  innocence  of  either  of  these  a  juror 
has  been  interrogated ;  and  he  has  formed  no  opinion  whether  he  is  guilty  of 
murder,  and  he  has  formed  no  opinion  as  to  whether  he  is  guilty  of  conspiracy, 


72  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

He  has  ansM'ered  these  questions  distiuctly ;  but  now  he  is  asked  whether  he 
has  formed  an  opinion  as  to  whether  other  people  were  engaged  in  it  or  not! 
Are  we  to  be  tried  for  that  ?  Is  that  a  matter  on  which  we  must  know  whether 
a  juror  has  formed  an  opinion  ?  Suppose  he  believes  that  other  people  are  guilty, 
or  that  other  people  are  innocent ;  can  they  throw  him  out  for  that  reason  1 
Certainly  not ;  and  they  cannot  ask  him  the  question.  They  can  only  ask  him 
whether  he  has  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  accused.  The  juror  has  answered  that  question  distinctly  in  the  negative  ; 
and  now,  can  you  ask  him  the  question  whether  he  has  formed  or  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  PiRRREPONT.  I  suppose  we  can  when  he  is  charged  with  them. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  question  is  whether  he  was  connected  with  them,  not 
whether  they  were  guilty.  The  juror  has  answered  that  he  has  formed  no 
opinion  as  to  whether  he  was  connected  with  them,  and  that  is  the  only  question 
that  can  be  put. 

I  am  enlightened  again,  in  another  point  of  view,  by  this  statute  to  which 
reference  has  been  made.  My  learned  brethren  know  perfectly  well  that  before 
that  statute,  under  the  common  law,  the  court  was  the  trier  of  the  fact  as  well 
as  the  adjudicator  of  the  law.  It  was  only  when  triers  were  demanded  that  the 
question  of  fact  was  turned  over  to  triers  for  decision.  Until  they  were  demanded 
the  judge  passed  upon  both  the  law  and  the  facts;  and  the  only  effect  of  the 
statute  was  to  so  modify  the  law  as  not  to  permit  the  question  of  fact  to  be 
referred  to  triers. 

The  Court.  I  suppose  the  intention  of  the  law  was  to  get  rid  of  triers  when 
challenge  was  made  for  favor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Certainly,  for  favor  or  for  cause.  The  party  had  the  right  to 
demand  triers,  but  the  court  would  decide  unless  they  were  demanded.  Is  there 
any  change  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the  investigation  ?  Did  any  human  be- 
ing ever  hear  before  when  a  man  is  called  as  a  juror  and  the  proper  question  is 
put  to  him  by  the  court,  that  the  counsel  on  either  side  may  cross-examine  him  ? 
1  confess  that  I  never  heard  of  the  practice  before. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.xT.  I  never  heard  the  contrary,  and  I  have  known  of  50 
cases  at  the  New  York  bar. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  I  thank  fortune  I  do  not  belong  to  the  New  York  bar. 
I  have  heard  your  honor  upon  the  bench  say  time  and  again,  "  This  has  gone 
far  enough.  I  think  we  can  risk  him."  You  have  always  stopped  an  exami- 
nation of  a  juror  just  as  soon  as  it  has  proceeded  to  the  point  of  ascertaining 
whether  he  has  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  prisoner.  But  that  a  juror  may  be  put  upon  his  cross-examination  as  to 
whether  he  is  eligible  or  not,  I  never  heard  before. 

The  question  that  it  is  now  proposed  to  ask  is  unnatural  and  irrelevant.  It 
is  unnatural  and  irrelevant  whether  a  man  has  expressed  or  formed  an  opinion 
as  to  the  guilt  of  other  parties  charged  with  the  murder  of  the  President.  I  do 
not  think  the  question  is  admissible  in  any  point  of  view,  because,  when  you 
come  to  examine  the  indictment,  there  is  no  such  question  to  be  tried  by  a  jury. 
It  is  inadmissible  because  the  charge  to  be  tried  by  this  jury  is,  whether  the 
accused  is  guilty  of  the  murder  of  the  President.  When  your  honor  comes  to 
examine  the  indictment,  with  great  respect  to  my  friends  on  the  other  side,  I 
submit  that  any  one  with  common  sense  who  reads  it,  will  say  that  the  charge 
is  murder  of  the  President,  and  that  the  matter  of  the  conspiracy  is  merely 
thrown  in. 

Mr.  Pierkepont.  The  whole  thing  is  conspiracy  to  murder,  and  in  a  con- 
spiracy to  murder  all  are  principals. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  may  be  New  York  law,  but  it  is  not  law  here. 

Mr,  PierrepoNT.  We  shall  desire  to  bring  in  the  law. 

The  Court.  I  shall  ask  gentlemen  to  bring  in  their  authorities  and  I  will 
then  decide  it. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  73 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  I  alluded  the  other  day,  incidentally,  to  the  fact  that  the  act 
of  1854  was  at  least  liable  to  the  construction,  that  unless  the  panel  is  completed 
by  Saturday  night  the  new  term  will  have  commenced  and  this  case  could  not 
be  tried.  I  hope,  therefore,  the  court  will  not  adjourn  now,  but  will  go  on  until 
all  these  jurors  shall  have  been  examined. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  new  term  commences  at  10  o'clock  Monday  morning,  and 
we  may  sit  until  that  time  if  we  please. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  true,  but  Sunday  is  a  dies  non  juridirus. 

The  Court.  Gentlemen  may  bring  in  their  authorities  and  I  will  decide  this 
question  to-morrow  morning.  In  the  meantime  the  witness  may  stand  aside, 
and  the  examination  of  others  may  be  proceeded  with. 

Z.  D.  GiLMAN,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A    I  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  fear  it  might. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  finding  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  where  the  punishment  is  death,  provided  the  evidence  be  such  as  to  satisfy 
you  of  the  correctness  of  that  finding  ? 

A.  I  have. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  could  not  find   a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
capital  case,  although  you  were  satisfied  the  evidence  warranted  it  ? 
A.  I  could  find  a  verdict  of  guilty,  I  suppose. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  That  is  the  case  I  put  to  you,  whether  you  have  conscientious  scruples 
such  as  would  prevent  you  from  saying  a  man  was  guilty  of  a  capital  offence,  if 
the  evidence  justified  that  finding] 

A.  I  could  say  that. 

Q.  And  you  could  find  a  verdict  of  guilty  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

Joseph  F.  Brow\,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
^^y  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  frequently. 

Q.  You  have  boih  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  jiulgnieut  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  I  think  it  should  not,  but  I  would  be  afraid  to  trust  myself. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  punishable  with  death,  provided  the  evidence  justified  such  finding? 


74  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  None,  whatever. 

The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present, 

Zbnas  C.  RoBBiNS,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  No,  sir;  I  could  not  a'dmit  that,  still  in  view  of  my  repeated  and  strong 
expressions  on  the  subject  of  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  and  his 
associates,  I  think  it  would  be  unfair  to  the  prisoner  to  have  me  on  the  jury. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in 
a  case  punishable  with  death,  provided  the  evidence  justified  such  finding? 

A.  Not  any. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused  from  further  attendance. 

Cornelius  Wendell,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as 
follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have  both  form  'd  and  expressed. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  that  the  opinion,  thus  formed 
and  expressed  by  you,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  making  up  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  tlie  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  I  feel  sure  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Joseph  Gerhardt,  duly  sworn  and  examimed  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ] 

A.  I  think  it  would. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in 
a  case  punishable  with  death,  provided  the  evidence  justified  such  finding? 

A.  1  have  not*. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Horatio  N.  Easby,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 

By  the  Court  : 
Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  75 

A.  I  have,  eir. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  1 

A.  Both  formed  and  expressed. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  Your  honor  will  permit  me  to  say,  that  ever  since  the  conspiracy,  which 
culminated  in  the  murder  of  Lincoln,  my  feelings  have  been  so  excited  against 
every  person  connected  with  that  conspiracy,  however  remotely,  that  I  think  it 
would  be  perfectly  unfair  and  unjust  to  have  the  life  of  this  party  placed  in  my 
hands,  and,  therefore,  1  do  not  think  I  could  give  an  unbiased  opinion  in  this 
case. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Thomas  Berry,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  tiie  case? 

A.  It  would  not. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  bringing  in  a  verdict  of  guilty 
in  a  case  punishable  with  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  satisfy  you  of  the 
propriety  of  such  finding? 

A    No,  sir. 

The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside. 

John  H.  Crane,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Both  formed  and  expressed. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  would.  I  should  feel  bound  to  bring  in  a  verdict  ac- 
cording to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  bringing  in  a  verdict  of  guilty  in 
a  case  punishable  with  death,  provided  the  evidence  justified  such  finding? 

A.  1  will  state  to  your  honor  that  I  ain  very  strongly  opposed  to  capital  pun- 
ishment, and  1  should  have  to  be  satisfied,  beyond  a  doubt,  of  the  guilt  of  a 
prisoner  before  1  could  bring  in  a  verdict  of  guilty.  If  there  was  a  shadow  of 
doubt,  I  should  feel  bound  to  give  him  the  benefit  of  that  doubt.  I  would  not, 
however,  say  that  1  would  not  bring  in  a  verdict  according  to  the  evidence. 

The  Court.  You  may  stand  aside  for  the  present. 

William  M.  Shuster,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows: 


76  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

By  the  Court; 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surrattl 

A.  I  have,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  If  I  were  obliged  to  sit  upon  a  jury  I  would  endeavor  to  render  a  verdict 
according  to  the  evidence,  but  at  the  same  time  I  feel  that  I  have  formed  and 
expressed  an  opinion,  and  that  I  would  go  into  the  jury-box  somewhat  preju- 
diced ;  that  I  would  have  something  to  overcome.  Having  entertained  a  very 
unfavorable  opinion  towaid  the  prisoner,  I  would  not  like  to  go  into  the  jury- 
box  without  stating  that  fact. 

The  Court.  I  think  that  comes  right  to  the  case  decided  by  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  that  a  witness  must  start  with  a  fair  chance  on  either  side.  You  are 
discharged  from  further  attendance  on  the  court. 

Henry  M.  Knight,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ] 

A.  Both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Robert  Ball,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt? 

A.  I  have  probably  given  some  expression  of  an  impression  formed  upon  my 
mind  from  common  rumor,  but  I  do  not  think  I  have  given  any  decided  expres- 
sion of  opinion,  nor  have  I  formed  any  very  decided  opinion. 

Q.  From  what  you  have  seen  and  what  you  have  heard  in  regard  to  these 
rumors,  do  you  believe  you  would  be  able  to  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict, 
after  having  heard  all  the  testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.  It  is  my  impression  I  could  do  justice  to  the  prisoner  as  well  as  to  the 
State. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  punishable  with  death,  where  the  evidence  would  justify  such  finding? 

A.  None,  whatever. 

The  Court  decided  Mr.  Ball  to  be  a  competent  juror,  and  no  challenge  bjiug 
made,  he  was  accordingly  sworn  as  such. 

John  F.  Ellis,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  I 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  77 

A.  I  have,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  1 

A.   It  would. 

The  Court.  You  ai*e  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Samuel  Fowler,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  on  several  occasions. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendiiring  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case? 

A.  It  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

Terrence  Drurv,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  noire  dire,  as  follows: 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  Both. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  state  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  tiie  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  am  satisfied  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

William  H.  Morrison,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows: 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  decidedly. 

Q.  Under  tiie  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  state  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering  a 
verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case? 

A.  It  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

J.  Russell  Barr,  duly  sworn  and  exammed  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  follows: 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence ©f  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have  formed — I  am  not  certain  that  I  ever  expressed  an  opinion. 


78  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  Will  you  say  on  the  oath  you  have  just  taken,  whether  that  opinion,  so 
formed  by  you,  would  prejudice  or  bias  your  judgment  in  arriving  at  a  fair  and 
impartial  conclusion  with  reference  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  after  hearing  all  the  evidence  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  would? 

Q.  You  have  never  expressed  any  opinion  at  all  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  recollect ;   I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  And  whatever  opinion  you  have  formed  is  not  a  decided  one? 

A.  Not  a  decided  one. 

Q.  You  remain  open  to  conviction,  free  from  prejudice  and  bias  ? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Have  you  conscientious  scruples  against  rendering  a  verdict  of  guilty  in  a 
case  where  the  punishment  shall  be  death,  provided  the  evidence  shall  war- 
rant you  in  such  finding  ] 

A.  I  have  not. 

The  Court  decided  Mr.  Barr  to  be  competent  as  a  juror,  and  no  challenge 
being  made,  he  was  accordingly  sworn  in  as  such. 

Jedediah  GiTTiNGS,  duly  sworn  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire,  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  have  both  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Under  the  oath  you  have  taken,  do  you  say  to  the  court  that  that  opinion, 
as  formed  and  expressed,  would  bias  or  prejudice  your  judgment  in  rendering 
a  verdict  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner,  after  having  heard  all  the 
testimony  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  think  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  ai-e  discharged  from  further  attendance. 

The  court  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

June  14,  1867. 

At  10  o'clock  Associate  Judge  Wylie  took  position  upon  the  bench,  and 
directed  the  crier  to  open  churt. 

As  soon  as  the  court  had  been  opened,  he  said  : 

GrENTLEMEN  :  I  regret  to  have  to  announce  to  you  this  morning  that  Judge 
Fisher  is  quite  sick,  and  unable  to  attend  court.  I  have  a  note  in  my  hand  to 
that  effect.  He  does  not  request  me  to  hold  court  for  him,  and  if  he  had,  I  have 
other  engagements  which  would  render  that  impossible.  I  am  at  present  hold- 
ing the  circuit  court  with  a  large  amount  of  business  before  me. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  What  disposition  can  be  made  of  all  these  jurymen  who 
have  been  subpoenaed  here  for  to-day  ? 

The  Court.  I  will  hear  any  suggestions  you  have  to  make. 

Mr.  PiERi£EPO\r.  I  do  not  know  what  we  can  do  exactly;  I  presume  we 
had  better  talk  first  among  ourselves.  I  have  no  doubt,  judging  from  what  has 
passed,  that  we  can  agree  upon  anything  amongst  ourselves,  so  far  as  agreement 
will  do  it. 

The  Court.  But  you  cannot  agree  to  try  the  case  without  a  julge. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  would  like  to  know  what,  in  the  mumtime,  is  to  be 
done  with  this  large  number  of  jurors.  The  order  was  for  summoning  100  for 
this  morning,  ani  they,  I  suppose,  are  here,  or  will  be.  Only  three  have  been 
empannelled. 

The  Court.  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  of  examining  this  recent  act  of 
Congress  upon  the  subject,  but  my  impression  is,  that  unless  tlie  juiy  is  obtained 
to-day,  the  case  will  have  to  be  continued  until  the  next  term  of  the  court. 


TJJIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  79 

Mr.  Merrick.  To-morrow,  your  honor,  or  until  Monday  morniug,  as  Judge 
Fisher  intimated  yesterday. 

Mr.  PlERRbPONT.  Let  me  ask  if  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  your  lionor  to  adjourn 
this  court  until  to-morrow  morning,  with  direction  to  these  same  jurymen  to 
appear  here  then,  for  if  the  sickness  of  Judge  Fisher  should  prove  to  be  but  tem- 
porary, whiih  I  hope  it  will,  we  might  then  succeed  in  getting  a  jury  this  week. 

The  Court.  I  will  add  that  I  have  also  a  note  from  Judge  Fisher,  stating 
that  in  consequence  of  representations  made  to  him,  he  is  satisfied  that  Mr.  Riggs, 
who  is  a  talesman,  summoned  in  this  case,  ought  to  be  excused  from  service  on 
the  jury.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

Mr.  Bradley,  If  your  honor  will  allow  me,  I  would  suggest  that  it  would 
perhaps  expedite  business,  if  those  persons  summoned  as  jurors,  and  desiring  to 
be  excused,  and  who  have  a  sufficient  and  valid  excuse  should  make  the  same 
now,  and  let  your  honor  decide  upon  it  at  once.  We  can  in  that  way  get  rid  of 
a  portion  of  this  number,  and  have  their  places  supplied  by  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  it  would  be  very  well,  indeed,  if  your  honor 
can  afford  the  time,  to  proceed  to  excuse  such  as  shall  present  sufficient  excuses, 
who  are  physically  disqualified,  or  those  who  ought  to  be  excused  for  other 
reasons. 

The  Court.  Very  well;  the  clerk  will  proceed  to  call  the  list. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Mr.  George  E.  Jillard  tells  me  that  he  is  summoned  before  the 
grand  jury  for  Monday  morning,  and,  is,  therefore,  of  course,  discharged  from 
this  jury. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Jillard  is  excused.  The  clerk  will  proceed  to  call  the 
talesmen,  in  their  order,  and  gentlemen  will  be  kind  enough  to  signify  their 
presence  as  their  names  are  called. 

The  clerk  then  proceeded  to  read  as  follows  : 

Thomas  Lewis,  no  response. 

Matthew  G.  Emory,  present. 

William  H.  Harrover,  present. 

Daniel  Breed,  present. 

Thomas  Young,  present. 

James  Kelley,  present. 

William  Orme,  present. 

John  McDermott,  no  response. 

William  Helmick,  present. 

Mr.  Helmick.  If  the  court  please,  I  ask  to  be  excused.  I  have  now,  and 
always  have  had,  conscientions  scruples  against  capital  punishment.  I  could 
not  sit  as  a  juror  and  do  myself  justice. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  pass  upon  questions  of  that  kind  now.  The  clerk  will 
proceed. 

George  T.  McGlue,  present. 

James  McGran,  present, 

George  A.  Bohrer,  present. 

Douglas  Moore,  present. 

Christian  C.  Schnieder,  present. 

Upton  H.Rodenour,  present. 

Isaac  W.  Ross,  present. 

George  J.  SeuflPerle,  present. 

Joseph  Crandall,  present. 

Thomas  E.  Lloyd,  present. 

Walter  W.  Burdett,  present. 

Frederick  Bat^s,  no  response. 

Moses  T.  Parkt'r,  present. 

Nicholas  Acker,  present. 

John  T.  Mitch^dl,  present. 


80  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Jenkin  Thomas,  present. 

Benjamin  H.  Stineraetz. 

The  Court.  Mr,  Stinemetz  I  am  told  is  confined  to  his  bed  by  sickness.  I 
have  a  note  from  his  physician  to  that  effect.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

Joseph  L.  Pearson,  present. 

Mr.  Pearson.  I  am  not  a  taxpayer. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  settles  it. 

The  Court.  Why  are  you  not  a  taxpayer?  Have  you  been  overlooked 
merely  ? 

Mr.  Pearson.  I  own  no  real  estate  in  this  city,  and  have  never  been  assessed, 
to  my  knowledge,  for  any  other  tax,  except  the  school  tax  which  I  have  paid 
on  voting. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  think  you  have  a  good  excuse. 

William  Ballantyne,  present. 

William  Flynn,  present. 

William  U.  Lane,  present. 

Mr.  Lane  approaching  the  court  as  if  desirous  of  addressing  him  privately. 

Mr.  Merrick  said:  I  will  simply  state  to  the  court  that  on  yesterday  we  had 
agreed  amons:  ourselves  that  the  court  should  hear  these  excuses,  and  act  as  it 
saw  proper;  and  that  was  suggested  from  the  fact  that  in  some  cases  the  excuses 
presented  by  the  jurors  might  involve  matters  of  delicacy,  which  it  might  not  be 
desirable  to  have  made  public,  and  that  such  should  therefore  be  addressed  solely 
to  the  court,  and  not  made  known  to  us,  unless  the  court  saw  proper  to  call  our 
attention  to  them. 

The  Court,  (after  a  brief  conversation  with  Mr.  Lane  )  I  am  satisfied  Mr. 
Lane  has  a  just  excuse,  and  he  is  therefore  relieved  from  service. 

Patrick  Flemming,  present. 

Francis  Lamb,  present. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Germon  Crandell,  one  of  the  jurors  summoned  in  this  case, 
informs,  me  that  his  wife  is  seriously  sick,  and  therefore  asks  to  be  excused.  He 
is  therefore  excused. 

William  Orme,  present. 

The  Court.  Dr.  Burrows  certifies  that  Mr.  Orme  is  laboring  under  such 
physical  disability  as  to  render  him  unfit  to  serve  as  as  a  juror.     He  is  excused. 

The  Court.  Francis  Lamb  hands  me  a  certificate  to  the  effect  that  his  wife 
is  very  seriously  ill.     He  is  excused. 

Thomas  Young,  whose  name  has  been  called,  I  have  known  for  many  years, 
and  have  known  him  to  be  an  invalid.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  cei'tificate  from 
Dr.  Young  st-ating  that  he  is  unfit.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

William  H.  Tenney,  excused. 

The  Court.  Dr.  Breed,  whose  name  has  been  called,  says  that  he  has  been 
educated  a  quaker,  and  entertains  such  strong  scruples  that  he  could  not  serve 
as  a  juror.     That  is  not  the  class  of  questions,  however,  that  I  propose  to  act  on. 

Dr.  Breed.  I  have  still  another  reason,  perhaps  a  stronger  one;  I  have  formed 
a  very  decided  opinion. 

The  Court    We  have  nothing  to  do  with  that  at  this  time. 

James  Y.  Davis,  present. 

George  F.  Gulick. 

Mr.  Gulick  stated  that  his  father-in-law  had  died  last  niglii,  and  of  coui'se  he 
did  not  feel  like  being  detained  at  court  under  those  circumstances. 

The  Court.  We  will  not  pass  upon  your  case  now,  because  the  court  is  not 
going  to  be  in  session  to-day. 

John  Grinder,  present. 

The  Court.  John  Grinder  has  furnished  the  court  with  a  certificate  that  his 
left  collar  bone  has  been  broken  by  being  thrown  from  a  carriage,  and  he  is 
therefore  unable  to  sit  as  a  juror.     He  is  excused. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  81 

Joliu  A.  Markriter,  present. 

Columbus  Alexander,  present. 

AVilliam  H.  Baldwin,  present. 

John  W.  Sininis,  present. 

John  T.  Given,  present. 

Paulus  Thy  son,  pi-esent. 

William  B.  Williams,  present. 

The  Court.  Jenkiu  Thomas  informs  the  court  that  he  is  subject  to  attacks 
of  inflammatory  rheumatism,  of  which  he  has  had  two  of  great  severity  wirhin 
the  last  two  months,  and  that  he  is  liable  to  a  return  of  them  on  any  very  decided 
change  in  the  temperature  ot  the  weather. 

The  District  Attor.\ey.  Almost  every  man  is  liable  to  a  disease  of  some 
kind,  and  I  respectfully  submit  to  your  honor  that  that  is  hardly  a  sutHcieut 
excuse. 

Mr.  Thomas.  I  am  suffering  now. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  think,  ]Mr.  Thomas,  that  your  case  is  such  a  one  as 
would  justify  me  in  excusing  you. 

Norman  B.  Smith,  no  response. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Paulus  Thyson  has  presented  me  with  an  excuse,  which  I 
think  is  a  sufficiently  good  one  to  justify  the  court  in  excusing  him.  It  is  rather 
of  a  private  nature.     He  is  excused. 

A.  B.  Stoughton,  present. 

Peter  Hepburn,  present. 

James  S.  Topham,  present. 

The  Court.  I  am  informed  that  Mr.  Topham  has  a  little  child  at  the  point  of 
death.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

William  J.  Redstrake,  present. 

J.  J.  j\Iay. 

The  Marshal.  He  is  in  New  York. 

William  McLean,  present. 

Thomas  Maguire,  present. 

James  C.  Kennedy,  present. 

Mr.  Kennedy.  I  claim  exemption  on  the  ground  that  I  am  not  a  resident  of 
the  District.  I  pay  taxes  on  property  here,  but  I  vote  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
and  pay  my  personal  taxes  there.     1  claim  my  residence  in  that  city. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

John  Wilson. 

Mr.  Wilson.  I  would  state,  your  honor,  that  when  I  am  away  from  my  place 
of  business,  it  is  left  without  any  one  at  all  to  attend  to  it.  My  family  are  all 
well,  sir,  and,  notwithstanding,  I  am  in  a  very  delicate  state  of  health  myself,  . 
(laughter,  being  a  gentleman  weighing  about  210  pounds,)  I  could  not  get  a 
certificate  from  my  physician.  I  have  no  excuse  to  render,  your  honnr,  other 
than  to  say  that  I  would  like  very  much  to  get  off  on  account  of  my  business 
engagements. 

The  Court.  Judging  from  yrmr  appearance  the  court  Avill  give  you  exemp- 
tion when  you  bring  your  doctor's  certilicate.     (Renewed  laughter.) 

William  H.  Barbour,  present. 

(reorge  L.  Sheriff,  present. 

Samuel  Bacon. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Bacon  is  a  little  unwell,  and  he  is  not  certain  whether  he 
will  be  able  to  be  here  to-day  or  not.  He  is  willing  to  serve  if  he  feels  well 
enough. 

Perry  W.  Browning,  present. 

Mr.  Browning.  I  will  simply  state  that  I  am  residcit  of  the  State  of  Mary- 
land, and  vote  there. 


82  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Browniug  is  excused,     I  know  tbe  fact  wliicli  be  states. 

John  Alexander. 

The  ^Marshal.  He  is  in  New  York. 

George  E.  JilLird,  excused. 

William  Bryan,  no  response. 

Amos  Hunt,  present. 

Lot  Flanuery,  present. 

leaac  W.  Ross,  present. 

The  calling  of  the  list  being  completed,  the  court  said  Mr.  Kelly  holds  the 
office  of  Avatcliman  in  the  Navy  Department,  and  is  therefore  exempt  by  law. 
Sir.  Stoughton  says  he  has  a  large  business  in  the  patent  line,  which  sitting  as 
a  juror  here  would  materially  interfere  with.  The  court  does  not  feel  at  liberty, 
however,  to  excuse  him  on  that  ground. 

Mr.  Stoughtox.  I  will  state  that  I  cannot  possibly  be  here. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  The  court  will  not  sit  to-day,  and  perhaps  not  to-morrow, 
and  you  may  not  be  required  at  all.     You  had  better  let  your  case  lie  over. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Douglass  Moore  is  excused  on  account  of  sickness. 

Have  you  any  propositions,  gentlemen,  to  make  in  regard  to  the  disposition 
of  this  case  to-day  1 

Mr.  Bradlf.v.  I  Avish  to  suggest,  sir,  to  my  brethren  on  the  other  side,  that 
it  would,  perhaps,  be  well  to  have  the  court  direct  the  marshal  to  summon  as 
many  more  to-raorro^v  as  have  been  excused  to-day. 

The  Marshal.  I  will  explain,  if  the  court  please,  that  I  understood  the  order 
of  the  court  yesterday  to  be,  that  the  marshal  summon  100  additional  jurors. 
In  view,  however,  of  the  very  limited  time  which  we  had  in  which  to  execute 
the  order,  the  full  complement  was  not  made  out,  and  I  propose  now,  if  such 
meet  the  approval  of  the  court  and  the  counsel,  to  fill  up  such  vacancies  as  have 
occurred  by  gentlemen  being  excused,  and  summon  the  remaining  number  of  the 
100,  so  that  the  list  shall  be  complete  to-morrow  morning. 

The  Court.  The  marshal  will  complete  the  list,  so  that  we  may  have  100 
here  to-morrow  morning. 

Thereupon  the  court  adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 

JuXE  15,  1S67. 

The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.     Justice  Wylie  on  the  bench. 

The  Court.  I  will  ainiounce  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  bar  engaged  in  this  case 
that  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  go  into  the  trial  of  it,  but  merely  to  preside  here  to- 
day for  the  selection  of  a  jury.  I  am  engaged  in  holding  the  circv;it  court,  and  I 
suppose  that  one  of  my  brethren  will  be  here  in  time  to  go  on  with  the  trial  of 
this  cause  on  ]\[onday.  I  have  adjourned  the  circuit  court  for  to-day  in  order 
that  the  jury  may  be  completed  in  this  case,  and  all  parties  thereby  saved  from 
the  expense,  labor,  and  vexation  of  going  over  again  all  that  has  been  done  from 
Monday  until  this  time. 

If  the  court  shall  adjoinni  to-day  without  completing  the  work,  on  Monday 
there  being  a  new  term,  the  case  would  have  to  be  continued.  For  that  purpose 
then  alone  is  it  that  I  have  adjourned  my  own  court  to  come  here  and  assist  iu 
the  conclusion  of  this  work  that  has  been  entered  upon  of  the  selection  of  a  jury. 
There  is  no  other  judge  who  can  attend  to  it,  and  Judge  Fisher  is  sick,  and  my 
other  two  brethren  are  absent. 

The  Court  excused  Mr.  Larmon,  it  being  shown  that  he  was  an  officer  of  the 
government,  employed  in  tlie  Treasury  Department,  as  master  machinist  in  the 
Currency  Bureau. 

The  Clerk  Avas  directed  to  call  the  list  of  talesmen,  which  he  preceded  to  do 
as  follows  : 

Thomas  Lewis,  no  response. 

John  McDermott. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  83 

The  Marshal.  lie  has  not  been  served.     lie  is  uot  in  the  city. 

Norman  B.  Smith,  present. 

J.  J.  May,  no  response. 

John  Alexancl(M%  present. 

The  Court.  I  think  it  would  be  better  for  those  who  intend  to  apply  for 
exemption  to  make  their  application  as  their  names  are  called. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  has  been  done  heretofore. 

Mr.  Smith.  May  it  please  your  honor,  I  don't  think  lam  physically  able  for 
the  endurance  of  a  juryman.  Besides  that,  I  do  not  believe  I  am  competent, 
for  1  have  expressed  an  opinion  relative  to  this  case. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  When  did  you  express  that  opinion? 

A.  I  believe  I  have  done  it  repeat(;dly. 

Q.  When  ] 

A.  After  the  trial  of  the  conspirators — after  reading  the  testimony  in  that 
case. 

Q.  It  is  not  enougli  to  have  expressed  an  opinion.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion, 
is  what  I  desire  to  know,  for  sometimes  men  express  opinions  that  they  do  not 
believe  in. 

A.  I  believe  I  had  formed  an  opinion  before  I  expressed  it. 

Q.  You  say  you  formed  your  opinion  from  reading  the  testimony  given  on 
the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  think  that  is  a  sufficient  excuse.  I  do  not  see  how  a 
man  can  form  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  of  a  man  in  one  case,  by  reading 
the  evidence  in  another  case. 

Witness.  If  that  is  not  sufficient  ground  to  excuse  me  I  claim  it  on  the  other; 
I  am  certainly  not  physically  able  to  endure  the  fatigues  of  sitting  on  a  jury. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  believe  you  are.  You  seem  to  be  very  tremulous. 
You  are  excused. 

The  District  Attor.\ev.  If  your  honor  please,  I  was  not  in  when  your 
honor  first  appeared  iipon  the  bench,  but  permit  me  to  say,  sir,  several  diffi- 
culties occur  to  us  upon  consultation,  in  the  way  of  proceeding  with  the  cause 
at  present.  I  do  not  know  whether  your  honor's  attention  has  been  called  to 
the  act  of  Congress,  which  was  read  to  Judge  Fisher,  providing  that  unless  a 
jury  is  empanelled  during  one  term  of  the  court,  we  cannot  continue  the  trial 
of  the  case  during  the  succeeding  term. 

The  Court.  I  understand  that. 

!Mr.  Braolev.  Is  that  any  reason  why  you  should  not  get  a  panel. 

The  Court.  That  is  why  I  am  sitting  here  to-day  in  order  that  we  may  get 
a  jury  before  the  next  term  begins. 

The  District  Attorney.  Precisely,  but  it  occurred  to  us  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  us  to  empanel  a  jury  to-day.  But  even  if  we  should  succeed  in 
doing  so,  there  are  other  difficulties  which  suggest  themselves  to  tiur  minds,  and 
which  we  deem  it  our  duty  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  court.  The  term  of 
the  criminal  court  is  assigned  to  one  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  during  the  term,  I  believe  a  rule  of  court  rerjuires  that 
where  a  judge  takes  the  place  of  the  one  to  whom  the  term  has  been  assigned, 
it  should  be  upon  his  written  request.  I  think  that  is  the  rule  of  the  court  in 
such  a  case. 

The  Court.  How  do  you  know  but  what  I  have  that. 

The  District  Attor.nry.  I  am  not  aware  of  how  the  fact  is  in  this  par- 
ticular case.  I  merely  suggest  these  difficulties  because  we  Avish  to  proceed  in 
such  a  way  that  there  can  be  no  objection  made  hereafter  to  the  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding. We  conceive  it  to  be  our  duty  to  bring  to  the  mind  of  the  court  such 
difficulties  as  may  occur  to  us,  and  which  your  honor  may  have  overlooked. 


84  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Tliere  is  one  other  point,  if  your  honor  please,  that  I  desire  to  call  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  court.  It  is  this,  whether  it  would  he  a  legal  proceeding  for  one 
judge  to  commence  the  trial  of  the  case,  to  decide  an  important  question,  such  as 
has  been  decided  during  the  progress  of  this  trial,  and  to  empanel  a  part  of  the 
jury  ;  for  a  second  judge  to  complete  empanelling  of  the  jury,  and  then  for  a 
third  judge  to  try  the  case,  for  the  reporter  has  read  to  me  the  announcement  of 
your  lionor  that  it  is  not  your  purpose  to  try  this  case,  but  simply  to  go  on  and 
empannel  the  jury. 

The  CovRT.  Yes,  that  is  all. 

The  District  Attorxey.  If  your  honor  were  to  empannel  this  jury,  and 
then  proceed  to  try  the  case,  that  might  obviate  the  difficulty  to  a  certain  extent. 
The  case  would  then  be  presented  of  one  judge  empanelling  a  part  of  the  jury, 
and  the  other  judge  taking  his  place,  in  conformity  with  the  rule  of  the  court, 
and  completing  the  empanelling  of  the  said  jury,  and  presiding  during  the 
entire  trial  ;  but  if  this  case  is  presented  with  Judge  Fisher  decidirig  one  import- 
ant question  which  has  been  submitted  to  him,  empanelling  three  of  the  jurors, 
and  your  honor  empanelling  the  nine  other  jurors,  and  then  of  the  case 
going  to  the  next  terra,  and  the  chief  justice  trying  it,  I  doubt  whether  that 
would  be  a  legal  proceeding.  At  all  events  it  is  a  question  of  such  grave  im- 
portance  

Mr.  PlERREPo.\T.  Three  judges  will  then  have  been  engaged  in  the  trial  of 
one  case 

The  District  Attorney.  I  say,  sir,  the  question  is  one  of  such  grave  im- 
portance that  we  have  felt  it  our  duty  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  court, 
and  to  submit  some  observations  upon  it. 

The  Coi:rt.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  waste  any  time  upon  points  of  that  sort. 
I  am  not  disposed  to  listen  to  argument  upon  such.  The  law  knows  neither 
Judge  Olin,  Judge  Fisher,  nor  Judge  Wylie,  but  looks  to  the  "justice  of  the 
criminal  court,"  and  it  makes  no  difference  if  all  four  of  us  are  concerned  on  the 
trial  at  different  stages  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Pierrepo.nt.  We  feel  it  to  be  our  duty  to  present  to  your  honor  the 
view  we  entertain,  that  under  your  law,  three  judges  cannot  sit  in  the  trial  of 
one  cause,  and  have  it  legal. 

The  Cdi'RT.  There  are  not  three  judges  sitting — only  one. 
Mr.  PierrepoiXT.  As  I  understand  it,   the  empanelling  of  a  jury  is  as  much 
the  trial  of  a  cause  as  the  hearing  of  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Are  we  to  understand  the  learned  counsel  as  holding,  that  if 
the  judge  be  taken  sick  after  he  shall  have  entered  upon  the  trial  of  a  cause,  and 
be  unable  to  attend,  that  another  judge  cannot  take  his  place. 

Mr.  PiHRREPOXT.  I  certainly  suppose  he  cannot  in  a  murder  trial. 
jMr.  Bradley.  He  certainly  can. 

Mv.  PiERREPo.XT.  Not  when  the  case  runs  into  another  term. 
The  Court.  Keduce  your  point  to  writing.    The  court  overrules  the  objection, 
.  and,  perhaps,  it  would  be  well  for  you  to  have  your  point  fully  presented  on  the 
record. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  am  not  a^vare  that  I  would  accomplish  anything, 
by  reducing  it  to  writing,  because  I  would  have  no  appeal.  At  least  that  is  a 
mooted  question,  Avhellier  in  criminal  caiises  the  government  has  an}^  appeal. 

The  Court.  I  have  overruled  the  objection.  There  is  no  use,  therefore,  dis- 
cussing the  matter. 

Mr.  PiERREPo.NT.  (In  a  low  tone  to  the  district  attorney.)  "We  cannot  go 
on. 

The  Court.  Proceed  to  call  the  jury,  Mr.  Clerk. 

The  clerk  then  commenced  calling  over  the  list  in  the  following  order : 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  85 

Thomas  Lewis,  no  response. 

Matthew  G.  Emory,  present. 

The  Court.  I  have  a  certificato  from  Mr.  Emory's  family  physician,  stating 
that  his  wife  is  quite  sick,  and  requires  to  be  removed  to  ditfcrent  air,  and  that 
Mr.  Emory  himself  is  rather  indisposed,  (laughter  )  The  act  of  Cougress  makes 
that  a  good  excuse.     He  is  therefore  excused. 

"William  Harrover  was  next  called,  and  after  being  duly  sworn — examined 
ou  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  reason  why  you  should  not  serve  upon  this  jury  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  but  1  would  rather  not.     I  do  not  like  to  serve  on  such  cases. 

The  Court.  Gentlemen  have  you  any  questions  to  put  to  him. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  thought  your  honor  intended  putting  the  question  to  him  as 
to  whether  he  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion. 

By  the  Court.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  case? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  have.  It  is  impossible  to  tell.  We  have  our  opinions 
about  these  things. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  1 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  has  served  upon  capital  cases.  It  is  hardly  worth  while 
to  ask  him  that  question. 

'i^lie  Court.  Mr.  Harrover  is  a  competent  juror. 

Mr.  Harrover.  I  have  a  certificate  here. 

The  Court.  Let  me  see  it.  I  thought  you  were  through.  (After  reading 
the  paper.)  Here  is  a  very  strong  medical  certificate  to  the  eff,;ct  that  Mr. 
Harrover  is  wholly  physically  incapacitated  from  sitting  ou  a  jury. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Who  is  the  physician? 

The  Court.  Dr.  Toner. 

Mr.  Harrover.   My  neighbors  can  certify  to  the  same. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Dr.  Toner  is  a  man  of  character. 

Mr.  Harrover.  I  tried  to  get  it  in  yesterday,  but  did  not  succeed. 

The  Court.  If  the  facts  stated  in  this  certificate  be  true,  he  is  physically 
incompetent. 

The  juror  was  excused. 

Da.miel  Breed  was  called,  and  examined  upon  his  voire  dire. 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Are  you  physically  able  to  sit  on  a  jury  ? 

A.  I  think  I  am,  though  I  am  not  very  well  now,  and  was  recently  quite 
indisposed. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  When  did  you  form  it  ? 

A.  From  the  first  history  of  the  murder  of  Lincoln.  I  have  watcln^d  every- 
thing I  have  seen  in  the  papers,  and  little  by  litih?  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
and  expressed  an  opinion  long  ago,  in  regard  to  the  prisoner. 

Q.   In  regard  to  this  prisoner  .' 

Q.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  You  are  incompetent,  and  are  excused. 

Jon.\  R.  Elva.\.s  called,  and  after  being  sworn  was  examined  upon  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  have. 


86  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    StRRATT. 

Q.  When  did  you  form  that  opinion  1 

A.  Probably  fi  om  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  conspiratoi-s  by  the  military  com- 
mission at  the  arsenal.  It  has  been  founded  ou  the  newspaper  reports  of  that 
trial  of  course. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  opinion  is  such  as  to  sway  or  bias  your  mind  so  as  to 
effect  your  judgment  upon  the  evidence  and  the  law  a^  given  to  you  by  the 
court  and  witnesses  1 

A.  So  far  as  I  can  analyze  my  own  mind,  I  do  not  think  it  would  have  any 
effect  on  my  judgment  in  the  i-endition  of  a  verdict.  I  believe  I  could  render 
a  verdict  in  accordance  with  the  evidence,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  I  may 
have  formed  an  opinion  from  reading  the  newspapers. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  1 

A.  None,  sir. 

The  Court.  I  think  he  is  a  competent  juryman.  Have  you  any  questions 
to  ask,  gentlemen  1 

The  District  Attorney.  If  you  honor  please,  having  upon  consultation 
entertained  some  doubt  as  to  the  legality  of  the  present  mode  of  proceeding,  we 
have  thought  it  best  to  reduce  our  proposition  to  writing,  in  order  that  hereafter 
Ave  may  take  some  advantage  of  it,  if  necessar}',  and  then  have  the  matter  more 
materially  considered,  either  by  the  judge  who  does  preside,  or  by  the  court  in 
hanc. 

I  will  now,  with  the  permission  of  your  honor,  proceed  to  read  the  paper. 
It  was  then  read,  as  follows  : 

"June  15,  1S67. 

"  The  district  attorney,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  objects  to  any  pro- 
ceeding to  empannel  a  jury,  on  the  ground  that  this  term  ends  on  Monday  next, 
June  17,  1867;  that  the  judge,  to  wit.  Judge  Fisher,  assigned  to  hold  the 
present  term,  is  sick,  and  not  present ;  that  he  was  present  on  Thursday  last ;  that 
another  judge,  to  wit,  Judge  Cartter,  is  assigned  to  the  next  term  of  this  crimi- 
nal court,  and  that  as  the  commencement  of  the  empannelling  of  the  jury  was 
by  Judge  Fisher,  it  is  submitted  by  the  district  attorney  to  be  illegal  to  proceed 
before  Judge  Wylie,  to  complete  the  empannelling  of  the  jury  in  this  case. 

"EDWARD  M.  CARRIXGTON, 

"  U.  S.  Attorney  for  District  of  Columbia." 

The  Court.  The  objection  is  overruled.     You  except  of  course. 

The  District  Attorney.  Yes,  sir.     "We  desire  to  have  the  paper  filed. 

Mr.  Bradley.  (To  the  district  attorney.)  Do  you  challenge  Mr.  Elvans  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  do. 

Thomas  Blagden  was  called,  and  after  being  duly  sworn  was  examined 
upon  his  voire  dire. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  have.     I  have  formed  an  opinion,  and  expressed  it  the  other  day? 

Q.   When  did  you  form  that  opinion. 

A.  During  the  progress  of  the  trial  of  the  assassins.  I  cannot  specify  exactly 
the  time.     1  read  attentively  all  the  evidence  that  was  given. 

Q.  You  formed  it  from  newspaper  reports  of  the  evidence  of  that  trial  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  that  your  bias  is  so  strong  in  consequence  of  that  opin- 
ion that  you  could  not  do  justice  to  the  prisoner,  or  to  the  United  States  ? 

A.  I  do. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  87 

RiLEY  A.  Shinn  was  called,  aud  after  being  duly  sworn   was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
Bv  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Shinx.  Your  honor,  I  wish  to  state  that  I  suffer  a  groat  deal  with  a  dis- 
ease, which  I  have  had  for  years,  and  which  would  be  rendered  much  worse  by 
sitting  as  long  as  I  would  have  to,  were  I  required  to  serve  on  this  jury.  I 
mentioned  the  fact  to  Judge  Fisher  the  other  day,  aud  would  have  come  prepared 
with  a  certificate  from  my  physician,  had  I  supposed  there  would  be  a  session 
of  tlie  court  to-day.  If  the  case  were  expected  to  occupy  only  a  few  days,  I 
would  have  no  objection  at  all;  but  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  sit  on  a 
protracted  case  like  this  promises  to  be.  Some  time  ago,  while  serving  on  the 
grand  jury,  I  was  compelled  to  get  a  leave  of  absence  from  Judge  Fisher  for 
some  fifteen  days,  in  consequence  of  this  complaint. 

Q.  Is  it  a  chronic  complaint? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  it  disable  you  at  that  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Sitting  any  length  of  time  has  the  effi.'ct  to  aggravate  the  disease, 
and  render  me  very  uncomfortable.  Walking  does  not  effect  me  at  all ;  but  it 
frequently  happens  that  I  am  not  able  to  ride  for  a  week  or  two.  Some  times 
I  am  unable  to  lie  in  my  bod,  and  have  to  sleep  in  a  reclining  chair. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Richard  M.  Hai.l  was  called,  but  not  responding,  his  name  was  passed. 

JoHX  Va\  Reswick  was  called,  aud  after  being  duly  sworn  was  examined 
on  his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  cnse. 

A.  I  have  not,  nor  expressed  any  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  ? 

A.   I  have  not. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  observe  any  physical  disability,  and  I  think  him,  there- 
fore a  competent  juror. 

The  District  Attorney.  "We  asked  IMr.  Van  Reswick  a  question  the  other 
day. 

The  Court.  Well. 

Mr.  PiBRRhroXT.  The  case  stands  in  this  peculiar  position,  your  honor. 
This  same  juror  was  upon  the  stand  the  other  day,  and  a  certain  question 
was  asked  him,  to  which  objection  being  made,  the  court  concluded  to  hold  the 
matter  over  and  let  the  juror  retire  for  the  time  being.  I  may  state,  in  this 
connection,  that  the  question  was  argued  at  great  length  by  counsel  on  both 
sides. 

The  Court.  What  was  the  question  1 

!Mr.  Pikrrf.poxt.  Has  your  honor  read  the  indictment,  alloAV  me  to  ask,  in 
order  that  I  may  make  myself  intelligible. 

The  Court.  I  heard  it  read;   1  was  present  when  the  prisoner  was  arraigned. 

Mr.  PiKRRKl'OXT.  The  indictment,  as  your  honor  will  perceive,  in  the  third 
and  fourth  counts  charges  this  prisoner  with  being  engaged  in  a  conspiracy 
with  certain  other  persons  named;  it  follows,  therefore,  that  if  the  other  jjcrsons 
with  whom  he  is  charged  with  being  engaged  in  a  conspiracy,  were  themselves 
innocent  of  any  conspiracy,  why  of  course  this  party  is  innocent,  because  he 
cannot  conspire  alone.  The  question  which  had  been  put  to  the  witness,  and 
which  was  held  under  advisement  by  Judge  Fisher,  was  as  to  whether  we  could 
properly  ask  the  witness  whether  he  had  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  re- 
garding the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  other  conspirators  named  in  the  indictment. 


o 


88  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Mr  Bradley.  And  the  principal  objection  to  which  was,  that  they  did  not 
ask  him  whether  he  had  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  complicity  of 
the  prisoner  with  the  ))arties  charged  with  that  conspiracy,  or  stated  any 
opinion  as  to  his  connection  with  them  in  any  shape,  but  as  to  people  entirely 
outside  of  him. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  It  came  up  on  a  single  question;  the  whole  substance  of 
the  thing  was  debated,  and  of  course  the  determination  of  that  question  would 
determine  the  other  questions  which  were  to  be  asked  of  this  witness. 

The  Court.  I  remember  observing  something  about  this  question  being 
raised  in  the  published  reports. 

jMr.  PiERREPONT.  If  the  court  should  say  that  any  opinion  formed  in  relation 
to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  co-conspirators  disqualified  the  juror,  why  then 
of  course  he  could  not  sit  any  more  than  if  he  had  expressed  it  in  relation  to 
the  accused  himself.  Under  these  two  counts  of  the  indictment,  if  the  other 
parties  were  not  conspirators,  wliy  then  this  man  was  not  a  conspirator,  for  no 
man  can  conspire  alone  ;  hence  I  say  it  being  a  material  averment  in  the  indict- 
rueut  that  he  is  guilty  as  a  co-conspirator,  it  becomas  in  our  judgment  a  matter 
of  very  great  importance  to  know  whether  this  juror  has  made  up  his  mind  in 
relation  to  the  innocence  of  the  other  conspirators  charged  with  this  crime  ;  if 
so,  he  has  so  made  up  his  mind  on  the  subject  as  will  necessarily  acquit  the* 
prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  thought  the  gentlemen  had  determined  to  abandon  the  case. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  We  are  determined  to  tile  our  objection,  and  have  done  so. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  do  not  propose,  sir,  to  discuss  any  of  these  questions  relat- 
ing to  the  qualifications  of  jurors,  but  simply  to  submit  them  for  yoitr  honors 
decision,  without  argument,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

The  Court.  I  called  over  to  see  Judge  Fisher  last  night,  and  this  question 
was  Bieutioned  by  him.  We  both  concurred  in  the  opinion  that  the  objection 
raised  to  the  coinpL'tency  of  thi^  juror  was  not  a  valid  objection,  and  he  would 
have  so  ruled  had  he  been  able  to  have  come  into  court  this  morning. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  If  your  honor  please,  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  the  cus- 
tom here  is,  in  relation  to  the  trying  of  jurors  before  the  court,  in  place  of  triers, 
as  the  statute  provides.  The  learned  district  attorney  and  the  learned  counsel 
on  the  other  side,  seem  to  entertain  different  views  as  to  the  custom.  I  will  only 
pay,  sir,  that  by  the  statute  of  1S62,  as  well  as  at  common  law,  these  were  proper 
questions  to  be  asked  of  the  juror,  in  order  to  discover  whether  he  was  competent 
on  various  grounds 

Mr.  Bradley.  Will  my  brother  perni't  me  to  ask  him  what  question  there  is 
before  the  court  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPo.XT.  I  want  to  see  whether  I  will  be  permitted  to  ask  any  ques- 
tions. 

The  Court.  I  have  overruled  your  objection,  yon  will  understand. 

Mr.  I'lERRKPo.XT.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  understand  that.  What  I  am  now  desirous  of 
ascertaining  is,  whether  olher  questions  going  to  the  competency  of  the  juror, 
are  in  your  honor's  judgment,  proper  to  be  asked  of  the  jurors.  My  learned 
friend  the  other  day  suggested  that  it  was  not  customary  to  examine,  or  to  cross- 
examine  a  juior.     1  do  not  see  how  we  are  otherwise  to  get  at  his  competency. 

Till;  Coi  RT.  This  juror  is  now  being  examined  by  the  court  on  his  roire  dire. 
If  counsel  ask  questions  it  is  only  by  permission  of  the  court.  Tlie  coitrt  will 
grant  you  that  ])ermission,  if  you  have  any  other  questions,  reserving  to  itself, 
of  course,  the  right  to  decide  upon  the  competency  of  the  questions  asked. 

Mr.  PiERREPoNT.  Of  course.  I  see  the  statute  provides  certain  qualifications 
in  order  to  make  a  juror,  and  with  the  permission  of  your  honor,  I  will  now 
proceed  to  ask  him  with  regard  to  such. 

The  Court.  Very  well,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  a  citizen,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  89 

Q.  Born  iu  this  country  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  native  of  Washington, 

Q.  I  presume  you  pay  taxes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  been  living  in  Washington  the  whole  time  since  the  assassina- 
tion? 

A.  0,  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  read  the  evidence  connected  with  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  or 
much  of  it. 

A.  I  read  some  of  it,  perhaps  all,  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  And  yon  formed  no  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  none  at  all. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  express  any  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  have  not  any  now  formed  in  your  mind,  one  way  or  the  other  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  will  now  put  to  you  a  question  which  I  do  not  wish  you 
to  answer  unless  the  court  shall  decide  it  competent.  I  presume  it  will  be  over- 
ruled, but  I  put  it  simply  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  point. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  touching  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  those  who  are  charged  in  this  indictment  as  conspirators  with  the  accused. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Do  not  answer. 

The  Court.  I  have  just  overruled  that  question. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  so  understood  your  honor,  but  I  was  desirous  of  liaving 
the  point  spread  out  on  the  record. 

Mr.  Bradley.   It  was  on'the  record  before. 

]\Ir.  ]\[ERRirK.  I  iinderstand  that  every  thing  that  is  said  goes  upon  the  re- 
cord.    The  reporters,  I  believe,  take  down  every  thing  that  is  said  ami  done. 

The  Court.  What  the  rejjorters  take  down  does  not  constitute  the  official 
record  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Not  the  record  usually  made  by  the  clerk  I  am  aware,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo.xt  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  th';  charge  is  for  which  the  party  is  ai'rested  here  ? 
A,  I  think  I  have  understood  it. 
Q.  What  have  you  understood  it  to  be  ? 

A.  I  understan  I  that  he  is  indicted  for  murder  ;  being  engaged  iu  a  conspiracy 
with  other  parties  to  commit  murder. 

Q.  On  neither  you  have  formed  an  opinion  ? 

A.  On  neither. 

Challenged  by  the  district  attorney. 

Joseph  T.  Brkw.v  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  this  case  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  When  did  you  form  this  opinion  1 

A.  About  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators.  I  also  formed  that  opinion 
about  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  Mr.  6urratt,  I  believe,  having  then  re-read  the 
testimony  in  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  which  you  have  received  from  reading  that  testimony  on  your 
mind  so  strong  as  would  interfere  with  your  impartial  discharge  of  your  duty  as 
a  juryman  upon  the  evidence  given  to  you  in  the  cause,  and  upon  the  law  as 
given  by  the  court  ? 

A.  I  think  it  would ;  at  least  I  would  be  afraid  to  trust  it. 

Excused. 


90  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Thomas  Brrry  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How,  and  in  what  way  did  you  form  this  opinion  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  statement  of  his  arrest,  and  a  portion  of  the  proceedings 
on  the  trial  of  the  other  conspirators. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  prevent  you  doing  impartial  justice 
between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  could  decide  it  fairly  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishmetit. 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  Gentlemen,  he  is  a  competent  juror. 

Mr.  Berry.  Permit  me  to  say,  your  honor,  that  I  am  not  in  very  good  health, 
and  therefore  do  not  know  as  I  would  be  able  to  serve. 

The  Court.  Have  you  a  doctor's  certificate? 

Mr.  Berry.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  The  presumption  then  is  that  you  are  able  to  serve. 

Mr.  Berry  being  accepted  by  counsel  on  either  side  was  sworn  in  by  the 
clerk. 

John  H.  Crane  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  your  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  this  opinion  ? 

A    I  formed  the  opinion  from  reading  the  report  of  the  assassination  trial  two 
years  ago,  and  from  circumstances  connected  with  the  case. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  disable  you  from  rendering  an  im- 
partial verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q    Do  you  believe  you  could  decide  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  in 
the  case  ? 

A.  I  think  I  could. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  ? 

A.  I  am  opposed  to  capital  punishment. 

Q.  But  so  long  as  capital  punishment  is  lawful  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  would 
that  disapprobation  on  your  part  influence  you  in  rendering  a  verdict  ] 

A.  It  would  not. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

William  Helmick  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  1  have  formed,  and  expressed  frequently,  an  opinion  in  reference  to  this 
case. 

Q.  In  what  way  have  you  formed  that  opinion  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  91 

A.  From  reading  tlie  proceedings  on  the  trial  of  tlie  conspirators  some  two 
years  ago, 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  decided  as  to  bias  your  mind  in  determining  between 
the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

A  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  that  a  person  should  form  such  an  opinion  as  would 
force  him  to  a  decision  contrary  to  the  law  and  the  testimony  that  should  be 
presented.  If  I  were  otherwise  competent,  I  could  not  consider  myself  incom- 
petent on  that  ground. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  I  do,  and  always  have.  Many  years  ago  I  favored  the  passage  of  a  law 
in  my  State  to  abolish  capital  punishment  in  the  State  entirely.  My  opinion  is 
very  decided  on  it. 

Q.  But  as  capital  punishment  is  lawful  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  do  you  think 
you  would  have  anything  to  do  with  that  as  a  juror? 

A.  I  should  very  much  regret  to  have  to  take  an  oath  to  decide  a  case  of  the 
kind.  With  my  present  views  on  that  subject  I  do  not  think  I  would  be  com- 
petent to  decide.  My  prejudices  against  capital  punishment  have  always  been 
such  that  I  do  not  feel  as  if  I  could  isit  as  a  juror  in  a  case  of  murder. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

George  T.  INIcGlue  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire,  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  By  reading,  and  from  rumor. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  decided  as  to  affect  your  impartiality  as  a  juror,  in  case 
you  should  be  sworn,  in  weighing  tlie  evidence  ? 

A.  If  it  had  not  been  for  circumstances  I  think  it  would  have  been,  but  my 
opinion,  from  circumstances,  has  been  changed. 

Q.  So  you  have  a  double  opinion  on  the  subject  1 

A.  I  say  my  opinion  has  been  changed  from  circumstances  transpiring  in  re- 
gard to  the  rebellion. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  this:  whether  you  could  do  impartial  justice 
between  the  government  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  according  to  the  law  and 
the  evidence'.' 

A.  I  would  rather  be  afraid  to  trust  myself. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  though,  you  could  decide  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  law 
and  the  evidence  in  the  cause,  notwithstanding  those  former  opinions  which  you 
may  have  entertained? 

A.  I  might  do  so,  and  then  again  my  feelings  are  of  such  a  character  that  I 
might  not  be  able  to. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  JNo,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juroi*. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

James  ^NIcGran  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  iu  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 
A,  I  have. 


92  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUE  R ATT. 

Q.  By  wlint  means  did  you  form  that  opinion  ] 

A.  By  reading,  and  hearing  conversations  in  regard  to  the  matter. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  strong  in  your  mind  that  it  would  affect  your  verdict  as 
a  juryman  ? 

A.  I  think  it  Avouhl. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  bias  you  as  to  your  verdict  upon  the  law  and 
evidence  thrxt  you  might  receive  in  this  case  1 

A.  I  think  that  it  would  have  a  tendency  to  do  so. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  1 

A.  No.  sir. 

Mr.  McGran  was  declared  to  be  a  competent  juror. 

Challenged  by  the  district  attorney. 

George  A.  Bohrer  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  should  like  first  to  hear  the  names  of  the  conspirators  read  before  I 
answer  the  question.     I  understand  that  he  is  indicted  jointly  with  others. 

The  Court.  No,  sir,  he  is  not  indicted  with  others. 

Mr.  Bohrer.  But  indicted  for  acting  jointly  with  others,  as  I  understand. 

The  Court.  No,  sir;  he  is  indicted  for  murder;  the  result  of  a  conspiracy 
with  others. 

Mr.  Bohrer.  I  have  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  con- 
spiracy trials  that  have  heretofore  been  had. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  Yrom  reading  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  evidence  taken  on  the  trial  of 
the  conspirators. 

Q.  Is  this  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  disturb  the  impartiality  of 
your  miud  in  weighing  the  evidence  on  the  trial  in  this  case  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  Probably  I  can  convey  a  better  idea  to  your  honor  before  answering  that, 
by  saying  that  I  expressed  this  opinion  in  regard  to  this  matter  from  the  evi- 
dence. 

Q.  You  will  please  answer  the  question  I  have  just  asked. 

A.  I  have  not. 

I  desire  to  say  with  regard  to  the  first  questions  put  to  me,  that  I  have  said 
that  I  could  not  have  convicted  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  evidence  adduced  before  the 
commission.  I  think  it  is  due  to  the  court,  to  the  public,  and  to  myself  to  make 
this  statement. 

The  Court,  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  case.  We  are  not  inquiring 
here  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  3Irs.  Surratt. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Bohrer  is  a  competent  juror  in  the  opinion  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Bohrer  was  accepted  and  sworn. 

Christia.\  C.  Schneider  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined 
on  his  i-oire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 
Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  93 

A.  From  tlie  papers  and  from  the  evidence  given  on  the  trial  of  the  conspira- 
tor.-?. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  on  you  mind  so  strong  as  to  render  your  incapable  of 
deciding  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  this  case  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Schneider  is  a  competent  juror. 

He  was  then  accepted  and  sworn. 

Upton  H.  Eidenour  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  as  fol- 
lows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  given  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  that  you  have  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  as  to  render  von  un- 
capable  of  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  would  have  considerable  to  overcome  before  I  could  do  it.  I  have  strong 
prejudices. 

The  Court.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question. 

My  question  is  whether  you  feel  that  you  have  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  as 
to  render  you  incapable  to  decide  upon  the  law  and  evidence  in  the  case  1 

A.  I  think  I  do. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Isaac  "VV.  Ross  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voir^ 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  I 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Mr.  Bradley.  ]Mr.  Ross  is  very  infirm  in  health,  being  affected  with  paralysis, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  sit  upon  a  jury  when  the  trial  will 
be  as  long  and  tedious  as  this  promises  to  be. 

The  Court.  How  is  that  JMr.  lioss  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  guess  there  would  be  no  difficulty  about  that.  I  do  not  appre- 
hend any. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Ghorue  a.  Suefferle  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire,  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the   guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  How? 
A.  From  newspaper  reports  of  the  proceedings  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 


94  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Is  your  niincl  po  biased  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially 
on  the  law  and  the  evidence  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  in  regard  to  the  lawfulness 
of  capital  punishment, 

A.  None  at  all. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  on  the  last  grand  jury  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  think  I  was  on  the  grand  jury  in  1864. 

Q.  You  were  not  on  the  grand  jury  that  found  this  bill  of  indictment  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Challenged  by  the  district  attorney. 

Thomas  E.  Llovd  was   called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  I  formed  the  opinion  by  reading  the  proceedings  on  the  trial  of  the  con- 
spirators before  the  military  commission  and  subsequently. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  strong  as  to  affect  your  impartiality  on  the  trial  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  I 

A.  As  far  as  I  can  analyze  my  own  mind,  1  believe  I  would  not  be  a  com- 
petent juror. 

Q.  You  think  you  would  be  controlled  in  some  measure  by  that  bias  1 

A.  I  think  so. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Walter  W.  Burdette  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  1 

A.  From  what  I  have  heard  and  read. 

Q.  Is  your  mind  so  settled  in  that  conviction  as  to  prevent  you  from  render- 
ing an  impartial  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence,  between  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  and  the  United  States  ? 

A.  I  believe  I  could  come  to  a  just  conclusion  in  the  case. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  in  regard  to  the  lawful- 
ness of  capital  punishment  1 

A.  For  many  years  I  have  been  opposed  to  capital  punishment,  or  the  pen- 
alty of  death  for  any  crime. 

Q.  Would  that  prevent  your  rendering  a  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the 
evidence  ? 

A.  It  would,  where  I  believed  the  sentence  would  be  capital  punishment. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Frederick  Bates  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  95 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  lu  what  way  did  you  form  it  ? 

A.  From  attendance  ou  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  and  from  reading  the  re- 
j/orts  in  the  newspapers. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  strong  as  to  hias  your  mind  and  affect  your  impartiality 
as  a  juror,  hetween  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  think  it  Avould  be. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Moses  T.  Parker  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  ou  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar. 

A.  At  the  early  incipiency  I  did. 

Q.  How  did  you  then  make  up  your  opinion  ? 

A.  Merely  from  the  floating  ideas  and  opinions  at  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  as  if  that  opinion  is  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of 
Tendering  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar,  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence  1 

A.  I  have  never  thought  that  an  opinion  eutei'tained  by  me  would  prevent 
me  rendering  a  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Nicholas  Acker  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  au  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  As  far  back  as  the  conspiracy  trials.     I  read  the  book  on  it. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  so  strong  as  to  affect  your  impartiality  as  a  juror  in  the 
trial  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  ou  the  evidence. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  if 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  You  arc  an  American  citizen,  are  you  not  ? 

A.  Partly  so  and  jjartly  not.     (Laughter.)     I  Avas  born  in  Germany. 

Q.  You  have  been  made  a  citizen  1 

A.  0,  yes,  sir.  I  will  state,  however,  that  I  cannot  very  well  serve  as  a  juror 
because  I  am  not  in  good  health,  as  you  will  see  by  that  nolo. 

The  Court,  (after  reading  the  note  referred  to  by  Mr.  Acker.)  He  is  afflicted 
with  rather  a  curious  disease.  Dr.  Garnett  certifies  that  he  is  at  present  under 
his  professional  care  ;  that  he  i.?  troubled  with  a  disease  of  the  stomach,  Avhich 
produces  at  intervals  sudden  rushings  of  blood  to  the  brain,  educing  attacks  of 
somnolency,  Avhich  are  iiTesistible,  and  oblige  him  for  the  moment  to  go  to  sleep. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Were  you  not  discharged  from  a  jury  in  the  civil  court  ou  that 
account  ? 


9S  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Ye3,  sir,  pretty  miich  on  that  account ;  I  told  the  judge  how  I  was  afflicted. 
The  Court.  Mr.  Acker,  you  are  excused  ;  it  won't  do  to  go  to  sleep  on  this 
trial. 

Dr.  J.  L.  Ki DWELL  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examiued  upon  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  I  understand,  Mr.  Kidwell,  that  you  have  some  special  claims  for  exemp- 
tion ? 

A.  I  have  three  letters  from  physicians  in  my  immediate  neighborhood  stating 
that  my  services  are  indispensable  in  my  store  at  this  time.  I  will  state  that  I 
have  no  one  in  my  store  at  present  but  a  couple  of  boys,  both  of  my  clerks  being 
sick  with  the  typhoid  fever — one  of  them  very  ill. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

John  T.Mitchell  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  I  formed  my  opinion  from  reading  the  testimony  before  the  court  that  tried 
the  other  parties.  Also,  by  being  thrown  in  contact  with  one  of  the  witnesses 
before  that  court,  while  travelling.  We  had  a  conversation  that  lasted  a  consid- 
erable length  of  time.  What  he  said  made  a  very  serious  impression  on  my 
mind. 

Q.  Do  you  think  this  impression  on  your  mind  is  such  as  would  render  you 
incapable  of  deciding  impartially  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence  which  may 
be  elicited  in  the  case  ? 

A.  If  I  have  ever  conscientiously  endeavored  to  come  to  a  conclusion  in  regard 
to  a  matter,  I  have  in  this  particular  case.  If  sworn  as  a  juror  I  would  strive 
to  do  my  duty  both  to  the  prisoner  and  the  United  States,  but  I  should  be  afraid, 
that  under  the  circumstances,  with  the  impressions  that  have  been  made  upon 
my  mind,  that  it  would  be  a  lifelong  regret  with  me  if  I  should  be  compelled  to 
serve. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Jexkixs  Thomas  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  imioceuce  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

Mr.  Thomas.  Will  your  honor  allow  me  to  call  your  attention  to  the  certifi- 
cate that  I  have  laid  on  your  desk?  You  will  see  by  that  that  I  am  physically 
incompetent. 

The  Court.  Dr.  Magruder  certifies  that  jMr.  Thomas  is  subject  to  violent  at- 
tacks of  inflammatory  rheumatism,  and  that  a  change  of  atmosphere  is  always 
likely  to  produce  them.     I  think  it  better  to  excuse  you,  Mr.  Thomas. 

Joseph  L.  Pearson  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  Lis 
voire  dire,  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  The  reading  of  the  evidence  taken  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  and 
the  events  Avhich  have  since  taken  place,  leave  an  impression  on  my  mind  of  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  97 

Q.  Is  that  impression  so  strong'  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding  impar- 
tially upon  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the  case  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  cap- 
ital punisliment  ? 

A.  I  am  only  opposed  to  capital  punishment  when  conviction  is  had  on  cir- 
cumstantial evidence. 

Q.  You  are  not  opposed  to  capital  punishment  if  the  case  is  made  out? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  positively. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Are  you  a  taxpayer  ? 

A.  I  never  paid  any  taxes  other  than  the  school  tax. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  resident  here. 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  is  no  school  tax  now,  but  be  says  that  he  has  paid  a 
school  tax  heretofore. 

The  Court.  Is  the  payment  of  taxes  required  now  in  order  to  render  a  man 
a  competent  juror] 

IMr.  Bradlry,  Yes,  sir:  he  must  be  a  taxpayer. 

The  District  Attorney.  Have  you  not  paid  the  school  tax? 

Mr.  Pearson.  I  have  paid  the  school  tax  heretofore;  I  have  never  been  as- 
sessed to  my  knowledge. 

The  0)URT.  I  suppose  the  word  "  taxpayer  "  means  a  man  who  is  liable  to 
pay  taxes,  whether  he  has  paid  thqm  or  not. 

Q.  Are  you  a  housekeeper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  liable  to  pay  taxes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  I  think  he  is  a  competent  juror. 

Islr.  Merrick.  We  beg  leave  to  except  to  the  ruling  of  your  honor  in  view 
of  the  answer  that  he  gave  as  to  whether  he  had  formed  an  opinion.  Desiring  to 
have  this  exception  reserved,  we  challenge  him. 

"William  Ballantyne  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on 
his  roirc  dire,  as  f  )llow3  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.   I  have. 

Q.    In  what  way  have  you  formed  that  opinion? 

A.  From  reading  the  testimony  and  from  listening  to  the  charge  of  the  judge 
■who  conducted  the  prosecution. 

Q..  Is  your  mind  now  under  such  a  bias  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  decid- 
ing impartially  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  in  case 
you  should  be  empannelled  as  a  juror  in  this  case? 

A.    I  think  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  ? 

A.   I  have  not. 

The  C(»URT.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

William  Flinn  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  thq 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

7 


98  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SUERATT. 

Mr.  Flixn.  I  beg  the  court  to  excuse  me  ;  I  have  a  very  sick  child  at  home. 
The  Court.  I  think  that  is  a  good  ground  for  excusing  a  person  from  service 
here.     You  are  excused. 

Patrick  Fleming  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  Avas  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  the  evidence,  from  newspaper  reports  of  it,  and  from  conversations. 

Q.  Are  you,  in  your  own  judgment,  incapable  of  deciding  impartially  between 
the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

A.  I  think  so,  decidedly. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

James  Y.  Davis  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Mr.  Davis  was  then  accepted  and  sworn. 

John  Markriter  was  called  and  duly  sworn. 

The  CofjRT.  Dr.  Riley  certifies  that  Mr.  Markriter  is  under  his  medical  care, 
and  that  he  is  wholly  unfit  to  sit  on  the  jury.     He  is  therefore  excused 

Columbus  Alexander  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innoQence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  1 

Q.  From  reading  the  testimony  in  the  conspiracy  trials. 

Q.  Do  you  think  your  mind  is  so  biased  as  to  render  you  incapable  at  this 
time  of  deciding  impartially  in  this  case  between  the  United  States  and  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  should  decide  the  case  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  any  conscientious  scruples  about  the  matter, 
but  I  am  opposed  to  capital  punishment. 

Q.  As  a  political  question? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

Accepted  and  sworn. 

"William  H.  Baldwin  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  99 

By  the  CoUKT : 

Q.  nave  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  tlie 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  have  you  formed  it  1 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  of  the  trial  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  yourself  under  such  a  bias  at  this  time  as  to  render  you  in- 
capable of  deciding  impartially  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  upon  the  evidence  in  the  case  ? 

A.  I  do. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

John  H.  Simms  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  upon  his  * 
voire  dire  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Is  that  such  a  conviction  as  would  render  you  incapable  of  rendering  a 
verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence? 

A.  I  think  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

John  T.  Givens  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  folloAVS  : 
By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  presume  I  did  do  so,  in  common  with  others,  when  this  case  was  on  trial 
some  two  years  ago. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  you  received  from  that  trial  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapa- 
ble of  deciding  impartially  at  this  time  between  the  United  States  and  the  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  None  whatever. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

"Washington  B.  Williams  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined 
on  his  voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  papers,  and  conversing  with  the  prisoner's  friends  and 
acquaintances. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially 
upon  the  evidence  ? 

A.  It  is. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 


100  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  B.  Stoughton  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 

voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way? 

A.  Mainly  from  reading  the  record  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Is  that  opinion  such  as  would  render  you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially 
on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  think  it  would. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Peter  Hepburn  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  hia 

voire  dire  as  follows  :  ' 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  ojjinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  have  you  formed  it  ? 

A.  By  reading  the  proceedings  of  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  upon  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  at  this 
time  of  deciding  impartially  upon  the  evidence  1 

A.  It  is. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

Wm.  J.  Redstrake  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion? 

A.  By  reading  the  reports  of  the  former  trial — the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  your  mind  so  strongly  biased  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding 
impartially  upon  the  evidence  in  this  case? 

A.  I  think  it  is. 

llie  Court.  You  are  excused. 

William  McLean  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  did  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Is  the  biiis  left  on  your  mind  at  this  time  so  strong  as  to  render  you  inca- 
pable of  deciding  imparlially  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  this  case? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  is. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment. 

A.  No,  sir. 

James  McGuire  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  as  follows: 

Bv  the  Court  : 
Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  i-egard  to  the  guilt  or  iimocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 


I 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  101 

A.  I  have  veacT  the  testimony  given  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators.  I  was  in 
New  York  at  the  time,  and  I  formed  an  opinion  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  it  leave  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  aa  to  render  you  incapable  of 
deciding  impartially  on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  believe  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment? 

A.  I  do  not. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Mr.  McGuire,  do  you  pay  taxes  ? 

A.  I  do.  I  would  say  to  the  court,  however,  that  I  am  a  Catholic,  and  I  saw 
in  the  New  York  Heivald  that  the  United  States  had  taken  exception  to  Cath- 
olics being  on  the  jury. 

The  DrsTRiCT  Attorney.  I  hope,  Mr.  McGruire,  you  will  not  hold  us  re- 
sponsible for  what  appears  in  the  public  newspapers  ? 

JMr.  McGuiRE.  I  would  rather  not  serve,  for  the  reason  stated. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  think  it  is  very  wrong  for  tjie  newspapers  to  pub- 
lish such  statements. 

The  Court.  If  the  uevv^spapers  say  so  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  contrary 
is  the  fact. 

Challenged  by  the  district  attorney. 

John  Wilson  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  1 

A.  From  reading  the  proceedings  had  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  render  you  at  this  time  incapa- 
ble of  deciding  impartially  on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  It  has  rendered  me  altogether  one-sided,  your  honor. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

"William  H.  Barijour  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  By  the  developments  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  Are  you  under  such  a  bias  now  as  to  be  incapable  of  deciding  according 
to  tUe  law  anil  the  evidence  in  this  case,  between  the  United  States  and  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  you  are  capable  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 


102  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  do.  I  have  been  refused  service  on  the  jury  over  and  over  again  on  that 
account. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused.  * 

George  T.  Sheriff  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  1 

A.  From  the  evidence. 

Q.  Are  you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially  between  the  United  States  and 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  on  the  evidence  that  might  be  brought  before  you  in 
this  case  1 

A.  The  evidence  would  have  to  be  very  explicit  to  change  my  views. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  could  not  weigh  the  evidence  impartially  between 
the  government  and  the  prisoner  1 

A.   I  think  I  could  provided  it  was  explicit  enough. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is  this  :  whether,  in  weighing  the  evidence,  your 
mind  could  do  justice  to  both  sides? 

A.  It  would  have  to  be  more  explicit  on  one  side  than  the  other. 

The  Court.  I  see  you  are  biased.     You  are  excused. 

Samuel  Bacon  was  next  called,  but  it  being  announced  that  he  was  confined 
to  his  house  by  sickness,  his  name  was  passed. 

John  Alexander  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  From  the  testimony  given  on  the  conspiracy  trials. 

Q.  Is  the  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding 
impartially  on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Court.  You  are  excused. 

William  Bryan  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  M'hat  way  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  in  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  so  strong  upon  your  mind  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  de- 
ciding impartially  on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  103 


A.  I  think  it  is. 
pjxcused. 


Lot  Fla.werv  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  au  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  From  being  present  at  the  military  trial. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially 
at  this  time  ? 

A.  It  is,  most  undoubtedly. 

Excused. 

Patrick  White  was  calk-d,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  have  you  formed  it  ? 

A.  From  the  testimony  given  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q,.  Is  that  bias  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  rendering  an  impar- 
tial verdict  in  this  case  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  It  is. 

Excused. 

William  J.  Murtagh  being  called,  was  sworn  and  examined  on  his  voire  dire 
as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  testimony  before  the  military  commission. 

Q.  Is  your  mind  so  biased  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  rendering  an  im- 
partial verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  ? 

A.  None  whatever. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Mr.  MuRTAUH.  I  desire  to  state  that  I  am  a  United  States  salaried  officer, 
and  am,  therefore,  I  presume,  exempt  under  the  law. 

The  Court.  Yes,  if  that  is  the  case  you  are  excused. 

Charles  H.  Armes  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar? 


104  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Have  yoii  any  conscientious  scruples  against  the  lawfuhiess  of  capital 
punishment  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  Are  you  a  tax  payer? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

James  M.  Latta  was  called. 

The  Court.  Dr.  Johnson  certifies  that  Mr.  Latta  has  been  confined  to  his  house 
yesterday  by  sickness,  and  is  not  able  to  be  out. 

James  Small  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment '? 

A.  I  do  not.  I  wish  to  state,  your  honor,  that  I  am  not  a  tax-payer — that 
I  am  not  the  holder  of  any  real  estate. 

Q.  Do  you  keep  house  't 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  am  a  householder. 

The  Court.  You  are  competent. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Jonathan  Kirkwood  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire,  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  From  the  reports  published  of  the  proceedings  in  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  decid- 
ing impartially  on  the  evidence  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Challenged  by  the  district  attorney. 

[This  challenge  exhausted  the  number  allowed  to  the  United  States,  they 
being  allowed  five  and  the  prisoner  twenty.] 

Amos  Hunt  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  How  old  are  you  ? 

A.  I  will  be  64  years  old  the  loth  day  of  August. 

Q.  Have  you  expressed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  105 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  know  nothing  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  in  regard  to  capital  pun- 
ishment? 
A.   No,  sir. 
Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Jacob  Ramsbkro  was  called,  and,  being  duly  sworn,  Avas  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  i-egard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.  Nothing  more  than  impression — not  an  opinion, 

Q.  Is  that  impression  on  your  mind  such  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  ren- 
dering an  impartial  verdict  ? 

A.    I  think  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
piuiishmcnt? 

A.   I  have  not. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

George  Cle\de.\i\  was  called,  and  beingduly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  1  have. 

Q.  In  what  way  ? 

A.  Unfavorable  to  the  prisoner. 

Q.  What  I  meant  was  how  you  formed  it  ? 

A.  From  the  evidence. 

Q.  Is  that  impression  or  opinion  of  yours  such  as  to  render  you  incapable  of 
deciding  impartially  from  the  evidence  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment "? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  would  say,  sir,  I  would  like  to  be  excused  on  account  of  the 
business  in  my  office.  Mr.  Middleton  knows  what  my  duties  are  ;  I  am  in  charge 
of  the  office  at  Gleuwood  Cemetery,  and  have  to  be  there  365  days  in  the  year. 
My  son,  who  assists  me,  is  a  witness  on  this  trial. 

The  Court.  That  is  necessary  work,  and  entitles  you  to  an  excuse.  You 
are,  therefore,  relieved  from  attendance  here. 

Benjamin  F.  Morsell  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  it  1 

A.  I  formed  such  an  opinion  as  I  suppose  every  man  in  the  community  has 
who  reads  and  thinks.  I  formed  this  opinion  from  reading  and  reflecting  upon 
the  evidence  given  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 


106  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURE  ATT. 

Q.  Does  that  amount  to  bucIi  a  bias  on  your  mind  as  to  render  you  incapable 
of  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  1 

A.  None  at  all. 

Accepted  and  sworn. 

John  "W.  Wray  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  have  you  formed  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Does  that  opinion  amount  to  such  a  bias  as  to  render  you  incapable  of 
doing  impartial  justice  between  the  United  States   and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Excused. 

JoHX  Marbury,  Jr.,  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  The  impression  was  made  on  my  mind  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  and  from 
bis  going  away. 

Q.  Does  that  impression  amount  to  such  a  bias  of  your  mind  as  to  render  you 
incapable  of  deciding  impartially  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  scruples  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital  pun- 
ishment 1 

A.  I  have  not. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Ephraim  K.  Wheeler  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on 
his  voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opmion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  have  you  formed  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Does  that  opinion  amount  to  such  a  bias  of  your  mind  as  to  render  you 
incapable  of  doing  impartial  justice  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  would. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punisliment  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT.  107 

C.  M.  SioussA  was  called,  aud  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  foIloAvs  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  au  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  the  evidence  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Does  that  opinion  amount  now  to  such  a  bias  as  to  render  you  incapable 
of  deciding  impartially  between  the  United  States  aud  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  It  does. 

Excused. 

Benjamin  Svvarmy  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  on  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Does  that  opinion  so  bias  your  mind  at  this  time  as  to  render  you  incapas 
ble  of  weighing  impartially  the  evidence  on  this  trial  between  the  United  State- 
and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  It  would  require  a  great  deal  of  evidence  to  remove  it. 

Q.  You  think  it  would  require  more  evidence  on  one  side  than  it  would  on 
the  other  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Excused. 

AoAiM  Gaddis,  Jr.,  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ] 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  what  I  read  of  the  evidence  given  on  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  that  bias  on  your  mind  so  strong  at  this  time  as  to  render  you  incapa- 
ble of  giving  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  ? 

A.  I  think  not.     I  think  I  could  decide  according  to  the  evidence  and  the  law. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ] 

A.  I  do  not. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Is  not  your  store  on  the  road  leading  down  to  the  Navy  Yard  bridge  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  great  place  of  resort  for  persons  who  live  across  the  Eastern 
branch  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  not  this  subject  been  greatly  discussed  in  your  store  aud  in  your 
hearing  1 


108  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  does  that,  together  with  what  you  have  read,  form  the  ground  of 
your  opinion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Have  you  not  had  conversations  with  persons  who  were  witnesses  on  that 
trial  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  such  conversations  assist  in  forming  your  judgment  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  they  did. 

Q.  You  have  had  conversations  with  witnesses  on  that  trial,  and  how  far  they 
have  affected  your  judgment  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  particularly  how  far  they  have  affected  my  judgment. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  submit  that  he  is  not  a  competent  juror. 

The  Court.  He  says  there  is  no  such  bias  ou  his  mind  as  would  reuder  him 
incapable  of  deciding  impartially  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley.  In  ordinary  cases  I  would  have  the  utmost  confidence  in  him, 
for  I  have  known  Mr.  Gaddis  all  his  life. 

The  Court.  I  think  he  is  a  competent  juror. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Tho.mas  E.  Clark  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  ; 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Did  you  form  that  opinion  from  the  evidence  elicited  at  the  trial  by  the  mili- 
tary commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  at  this  time  as  to  render  you  incapa- 
ble of  deciding  impartially  between  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  and  the  United  States 
on  the  evidence  that  might  be  brought  before  you  1 

A,  I  feel  that  I  have. 

Excused. 

"\Yilll\m  Lord  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn  was  examined  on  his  voire 
dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  By  reading  the  newspapers  ? 

A.  Nothing  further. 

Q.  Is  it  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  impartially 
deciding  ixpon  a  verdict  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  1 

A.  None  whatever. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Horatio  BrovvnIiVg  being  called. 

The  Court  said  :  Dr.  Stone  sends  me  a  certificate  certifying  that  Mr.  Brown- 
ing has  been  under  his  professional  charge  for  many  years  past,  and  that  the 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  109 

nature  of  Lis  complaint  is  such  as  to  render  him  wholly  unfit  to  sit  on  any  jury 
trial. 

Excused. 

Benjamin  E.  Gittings  was  called,  and  being  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  CorRT  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
pi'isoner  at  the  bar  1 

Mr.  GiTTlNUS.  May  it  please  your  honor  I  have  been  summoned  on  the  next 
grand  jury. 

The  Court.  I  think  this  case  takes  priority  of  the  grand  jury. 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  Partially  so,  from  the  evidence  I  read  in  the  papers  of  the  trial  that  took 
place  down  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  Are  you  conscious  of  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  at  this  time  as  to  render 
you  incapable  of  coming  to  an  impartial  verdict  according  to  the  law  and  the 
evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of  capital 
punishment  ? 

A    Not  a  bit,  sir. 

The  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juror. 

Mr.  Gittings.  I  hope  the  judge  will  excuse  me.  I  am  the  only  male  about 
my  stove,  and  I  have  to  open  and  close  it  every  morning  and  evening. 

Mr.  Merkick.  I  would  simply  say  to  your  honor  that  Mr.  Gittings  has  one 
of  the  most  enterprising  wives  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Mr.  Gittings,  (good-humoredly.)  I  hope  that  will  have  no  weight  with  the 
honorable  court. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Gittings,  this  is  a  case  in  which  the  court  feels  justified  in 
appealing  to  the  public  spirit  of  the  city.  Citizens  must  make  some  personal 
sacrifices  for  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  Gittings.  There  are  so  many  others  here  who  can  serve  without  any 
great  inconvenience  to  their  business,  that  I  hope  your  honor  will  consent  to 
excuse  me. 

The  Court.  I  would  be  glad  to  do  so,  but  you  are  so  well  qualified  as  a 
juryman  that  I  do  not  feel  justified  in  doing  so.  There  is  no  citizen  who  has 
not  his  private  affairs  to  attend  to.  A  man  who  has  no  business  is  not  fit  to  be 
a  juryman.  I  hope  you  will  be  able  to  make  such  an  arrangement  as  will 
save  you  from  any  loss. 

Accepted  and  sworn 

William  M.  Galt  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  I  suppose  from  the  newspaper  reports  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  conscious  of  ,*ucli  a  bias  on  your  mind  at  this  time  as  to  render 
you  incapable  of  deciding  impartially  on  the  evidence  between  the  United  States 
and  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 


110  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  * 

A.  I  think  I  have  not. 
Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

N.  Clearv  McKnew  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  1 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

The  Court.  He  is  competent. 

Challenged  by  the  prisoner. 

Lemuel  Towers  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  1 

A.  T  have. 

Q.  How? 

A.  From  the  proceedings  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  and  from  conversa- 
tions with  officers  on  the  trial. 

Q.  Have  you  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  deciding 
impartially  from  the  evidence  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have  no  such  bias.     I  believe  I  could  give  him  a  fair  trial. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  against  the  lawfulness  of 
capital  punishment  ? 

A.  No  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  How  is  your  health  ? 

A.  I  am  suffering  a  great  deal  with  rheumatism.  I  will  say  here  that  I  can 
bring  a  surgeon's  certificate  that  my  health  is  such  as  not  to  admit  of  my  sitting 
on  a  jury. 

Q.  Do  you  feel  capable  of  going  through  a  protracted  trial  ?  Is  joxiv  health 
such  as  to  enable  you  to  do  so  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Excused. 

George  T.  Langley  was  called. 

The  Court.  Dr.  Howard  certifies  that  Mr.  Langley's  health  is  such  as  to 
render  it  unsafe  for  him  to  sit  as  a  juror.  I  take  it  the  doctor's  certificate  is 
true,  although  I  must  say  Mr.  Langley's  appearance  does  not  indicate  it. 

Mr.  Langley.  I  am  a  little  flush  just  now. 

Gilbert  M.  Wight  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  Ill 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  that  opinion  ? 

A.  From  reading  the  evidence  on  the  conspiracy  trials. 

Q.  Are  you  conscious  of  having  such  a  bias  on  your  mind  at  tliis  time  as 
would  render  you  incapable  of  giving  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United 
States  and  the  prisoner? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  could  give  such  a  verdict. 

Excused. 

xVrorsTus  Schneider  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows  : 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How? 

A.  From  reading  the  pi'oceedings  of  the  trial  at  the  arsenal.  I  will  here  state 
that  there  is  another  reason  why  I  think  I  ought  to  be  excused.  I  am  at  work 
up  in  the  post  office,  and  there  is  nobody  there  except  myself  to  attend  to  it.  I 
will  have  to  stop  the  work  if  I  am  required  to  sit  as  a  juror  here. 

Excused. 

Robert  M.  Combs  was  called. 

The  Court.  The  mayor  certifies  that  Mr.  Combs  is  one  of  the  corporation 
weighmasters  in  the  Sixth  ward,  and  is  at  this  time  very  much  engaged  iu  that 
business. 

The  District  Attorney.  Is  that  a  good  excuse,  your  honor  ?  It  is  not  made 
so  in  the  act. 

The  Court,  It  is  a  public  employment. 

Excused. 

Charles  E.  Rittenhouse  was  called. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Rittenhouse  is  subject  to  some  infirmity  that  renders  him 
unfit  to  sit  as  a  juror.     I  do  not  know  what  it  is.     He  is  excused. 

Joseph  G.  Waters  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  his 
voire  dire  as  follows : 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  it  \ 

A.  From  reading  the  proceedings  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Have  they  left  such  an  impression  on  your  mind  as  to  render  you  incapable 
of  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  between  the  United  States  and  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar? 

A.  They  have,  to  a  certain  extent. 

Q.  Does  that  bias  go  to  such  an  extent  that  you  could  not  weigh  the  evidence 
impartially  ? 

A.  It  would  certainly  require  a  very  large  amount  of  evidence  to  get  rid  of 
the  impression  left  upon  my  mind. 

The  Court.  That  is  a  bias.     You  are  excused. 


112  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

William  W.  Birth  was  called,  and  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  on  bis 
vob-e  dire  as  follows : 

By  tbe  Court: 

Q,  Have  you  formed  an  opinion  in  regard  to  tbe  guilt  or  innocence  of  tbe 
prisoner  at  tbe  bar? 

A.  I  bave. 

Q.  How  did  you  form  it  ? 

A.  From  reading  tbe  testimony  in  tbe  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Is  tbe  bias  upon  your  mind  so  great  as  to  render  you  incapable  of  weigbing 
tbe  evidence  in  tbe  case  impartially? 

A.  I  tbink  not. 

Q.  Do  you  entertain  any  conscientious  convictions  as  to  tbe  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  tbe  prisoner  at  tbe  bar  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Tbe  Court.  He  is  a  competent  juroi*. 

Mr,  Birth.  I  would  suggest,  your  bonor,  tbat  I  am  summoned  on  the  next 
grand  jury. 

Tbe  Court.  O,  well,  if  you  are  sworn  in  tbis  case  it  will  be  a  good  excuse 
for  getting  off  from  service  tbere.  Tbe  otber  court  would  bardly  expect  you 
to  serve  tbere  if  you  are  engaged  bere. 

Mr.  Birtb  was  then  accepted. 

Tbe  District  Attorney.  I  would  state,  your  bonor,  tbat  we  wisb  in  tbis 
case  to  pursue  tbe  course,  ordinarily  adopted  in  sucb  cases,  of  liaving  tbe  eleven 
jurors  sworn  now,  and  tbe  twelftb  remain  unsworn  until  Monday  morning,  in 
order  tbat  tbe  jury  may  be  allowed  to  separate  and  be  at  liberty  on  to-morrow, 
(Sabbatb,)  and  tbus  be  able  to  make  sucb  arrangements  as  tbey  may  desire  before 
entering  upon  tbe  trial  on  Monday. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Tbat  is  all  very  well  if  we  bad  not  understood  from  our  learned 
brothers  tbat,  unless  tbe  whole  panel  was  sworn  in  to-day,  there  is  no  panel ; 
tbat  tbe  case  is  not  made  up.  We  learn  from  them  tbat  tbat  is  their  interpreta- 
tion of  tbe  LiM^  and.  therefore,  if  tbey  should  succeed  in  maintaining  tbat  view, 
tbis  week's  work  will  be  lost  unless  this  jury  is  sworn  in  before  Monday.  We 
can  agree  among  ourselves  very  readily  tbat  tbere  may  be  a  recess  from  now 
imtil  some  time  this  evening,  when  the  jury  can  be  sworn  in.  But  unless  that  is 
done — unless  tbe  panel  is  made  com])lete — if  your  honor  will  look  at  the  statutes 
you  will  find  that  these  gentlemen  will  accomplish  in  tbis  way  just  what  they 
would  bave  accomplished  by  their  motion  which  has  been  denied.  To  acquiesce 
in  the  suggestion  of  the  learned  district  attorney  will  defeat  all  tbe  work  of  the 
past  week. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  If  your  bonor  please,  tbis  question  was  up  before  Judge 
Fisher,  and  the  conclusion  be  then  announced  fiom  tbe  bench,  and  which  I  sup- 
posed was  concurred  in  by  counsel  on  both  sides,  was  this,  "  That  should  the 
jury  be  sworn  in  before  the  meeting  of  the  next  term,  to  wit,  10  o'clock  on  Mon- 
day morning,  it  was  all  that  was  required."  That  is  the  view  then  expressed, 
as  1  tniderstood,  and,  I  repeat,  concurred  in  by  counsel  on  both  sides.  The 
jurors,  therefore,  being  obtained,  let  the  swearing  in  ot  the  twelfth  one  be  de- 
ferred until  jMonday  morning,  and  thus  will  tbe  necessity  of  keeping  tbe  jury 
•  together  over  Sunday  be  avoided. 

Mr.  Merrick  If  your  honor  please,  I  think  my  learned  brother  is  in  error 
as  to  tbe  conclusions  to  which  the  judge  and  counsel  came.  I  say  this  with  all 
due  respect.  It  was  suggested  when  Judge  Fisher  was  on  the  bench  tbat  the 
time  was  very  nuxcb  limited  within  which  to  get  a  jury,  Saturday  night  being 
fixed  as  the  e.Ktent  of  tbat  limitation.  I  suggested  that  at  common  law,  as  i 
understood  it,  a  session  of  the  court  or  a  term  of  tbe  court  never  ended  until  tbe 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  113 

first  day  of  the  succeeding  term,  and  that  the  court  ought  to  be  called  on  the 
first  day  of  the  succeeding  term  as  of  the  old  term,  and  I  believe  that  to  be  the 
rule,  that  this  court  may  be  called  on  Monday  morning.  There  is  great  doubt, 
however,  as  to  what  may  be  done  by  the  court  on  that  first  day  of  the  new  term 
acting  as  of  the  old  term,  and  I  find  that  the  general  rule  is  that  nothing  can  be 
done  except  the  mere  correction  of  its  records  as  of  the  old  term ;  that  you  can- 
not then  enter  upon  new  business.  Now,  the  swearing  of  the  twelfth  juror  be- 
ing the  completing  of  the  panel,  would  be  the  entering  upon  the  case  anew,  and 
the  act  of  Congress  says  that  the  case  can  only  go  on  where  a  new  term  inter- 
venes during  its  progress — where  the  jury  has  been  impanelled,  and  it  is  neces- 
sary, therefore,  to  complete  the  empanelling  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  question 
of  doubt  in  reference  to  the  matter.  It  certainly  is  expedient  that  the  panel 
should  be  completed  to-day. 

The  District  Attorn k v.  If  your  honor  please,  our  only  object  is,  if  pos- 
sible, to  avoid  keeping  the  jury  unnecessarily  in  confinement  over  Sunday.  I 
would  suggest,  sir,  that  we  might  adjourn  this  court  over  to  meet  at  9  o'clock 
on  Monday  morning,  in  order  to  meet  the  view  of  the  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Yes  ;  but  at  common  law  you  cannot  divide  a  day. 

The  District  Attornkv.  I  am  distinct  in  my  recollection  that  Judge 
Fisher 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  You  made  a  similar  suggestion  to  Judge  Fisher,  and  he  said 
laughingly  that  you  might  even  sit  on  Sunday ;  that  he  would  sit  right  straight 
through. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Could  not  this  court  be  adjourned  to  Sunday  night  ?  It 
seems  to  me  that  if  we  can  avoid  keeping  this  jury  over  Sunday  it  would  be 
well  to  do  so. 

The  Court.  Sunday  is  a  "  dies  nonjuridicus." 

Mr.  PlERREi'OXT.  Well,  sir,  we  Avill  agree  to  anything  that  is  proper  by  which 
this  jury  can  have  their  freedom  on  Sunday. 

Mr.  Braulev.  If  the  gentlemen  will  agree  that  the  prisoner  can  consent  to  the 
jury  separating  after  being  sworn  until  Monday  morning,  there  will  be  no  diffi- 
culty whatever  in  accommodating  the  jnry  in  the  way  of  which  the  gentleman 
speaks.  Their  doctrine,  however,  is  that  the  prisoner  can  consent  to  nothing  ; 
that  by  the  most  formal  stipulations  he  cannot  waive  any  of  his  rights.  We 
apprehend,  therefore,  that  difiiculty  may  arise  in  the  event  of  the  jury  separat- 
ing without  being  sworn.  I  do  not  see  how  the  end  which  the  gentleman  says 
he  aims  at,  of  giving  the  jurors  time  to  make  necessary  arrangements  for  sitting 
on  the  trial,  can  be  obtained  otherwise  than  by  letting  the  jurors  go  now  until 
9  or  10  o'clock  to-night,  and  then  resuming  the  session  of  the  court  at  that  time 
to  have  them  sworn  in. 

The  Court.  I  would  like  to  see  the  language  of  the  act. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.NT.  I  supposed  the  proposition  we  made  could  not  by  any  pos- 
sibility work  against  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  I  am  not  quite  sure,  if  your  honor  pleases,  who  is  to  preside 
over  the  trial  of  this  case ;  and  what  his  view  may  be  of  the  question  to-day 
made  by  the  gentlemen,  I  do  not  know  ;  and  we  do  not  think  it  proper  to  run  any 
risk  about  this  matter.  The  prisoner  is  now  upon  his  trial;  a  jury  has  been 
selected,  and  is  ready  to  be  empanelled ;  and  the  law  says  unless  it  is  empan- 
elled before  the  next  term,  the  case  shall  be  continued. 

Mr.  PiERREi'ONT.  We  have  no  other  object  in  view  than  the  securing  for 
these  jurors  the  privilege  of  separating  until  Monday.  Any  mode  which  may 
be  suggested  that  will  accomplish  that  object  we  will  readily  adopt. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  are  as  desirous  us  the  gentleman  can  be,  of  accommodating 
the  jury,  but  we  do  not  wish  to  embarrass  the  proceedings  in  the  case. 
S 


114  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Bradles'.  I  do  uot  see  how  we  can  bind  the  United  States  to  any  such 
stipulation  as  is  proposed. 

The  District  Attorney.  The  language  of  the  law  is  this  : 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  So  far  as  I  can  understand,  the  panel  has  now  been  formed, 
and  I  cannot  see  why,  under  that  statute,  the  panel  having  been  formed,  the 
court  cannot  adjourn  ;  but  of  course  that  is  a  matter  for  your  honor  to  determiue. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Does  my  learned  brother  mean  to  say  that  a  jury  is  empan- 
elled in  a  cause  before  it  is  sworn  ? 

Mr.  PlERREPOXT.  It  is  generally  sworn  in  connection  with  it. 

■Mr  Bradley.  There  is  no  panel  in  this  particular  case. 

Mr.  Merrick.  When  is  a  jury  empanelled  ? 

Mr.  PlERREPOAT.  That  is  the  question. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  jury  cannot  be  said  to  be  empanelled  until  the  last  man 
is  sworn  upon  the  issue. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  do  not  want  to  appear  or  claim  to  be  at  all  learned  upon 
the  technical  question  as  to  when  a  jury  is  and  when  it  is  not  empanelled,  but 
ray  own  impression  is  that  when  a  jury  is  ordered  into  their  seats,  the  panel 
is  completed.  The  swearing  of  them  is  proceeded  with  in  different  ways  in 
different  courts.  In  some  courts  they  are  sworn  separately,  and  in  others  again 
they  are  all  sworn  together. 

The  Court.  We  have  always  understood  here,  I  think,  that  the  jury  is  re- 
garded as  empanelled  after  the  clerk  pronounces  the  words  :  "  Gentlemen  of 
the  jury,  stand  together  and  hear  the  evidence."  That  closes  the  empanelling 
of  the  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley  read  from  Wharton's  Criminal  Laws  as  follows:  "  Until  the  jury 
are  all  sworn,  as  has  been  already  noticed,  it  is  not  necessary  that  they  .should 
be  kept  together.     They  are  not  empanelled  until  the  whole  jury  is  sworn." 

The  Court.  I  think  the  best  way  under  this  law  is  to  have  the  jury  empan- 
elled without  delay. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  suggest  to  your  honor  that  we  might  take  a  recess  until  ten 
o'clock  to-night,  and  then  swear  in  the  last  juror. 

The  Court.  If  agreeable  to  counsel  the  court  will  make  that  order. 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  attachments  were  issued 
against  Messrs.  George  H.  Plant  and  William  P.  Dole.  Those  gentlemen  arc 
now  in  court ;  what  shall  be  done  with  them  ? 

The  Court.  0,  we  are  so  happily  through,  now,  that  I  am  uot  disposed  to 
punish  them.     They  are  discharged. 

After  an  order  for  the  discharge  of  all  jurors  who  had  been  summoned  and 
not  called,  the  court  took  a  recess  till  ten  o'clock  p.  m. 

EVENING    SESSION. 

The  court  reassembled  at  ten  o'clock,  evening,  in  the  circuit  court  room, 
pursuant  to  adjournment  at  half  past  one  o'clock. 

The  prisoner  having  been  brought  into  court,  Judge  Wylie  announced  the 
fact,  and  asked  the  counsel  if  they  had  any  proposition  to  make. 

The  jurors  were  then  called,  and  Mr.  Birth,  the  twelfth  juror,  was  about  to 
be  sworn,  when  Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  did  not  know  what  conclusion  had  been 
arrived  at  in  reference  to  a  stipulation  allowing  the  jury  to  separate. 

The  Court  said  he  knew  nothing  of  a  stipulation,  and  could  only  pass  upon 
such  agreement  as  was  consented  to  by  counsel, 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  there  seemed  to  be  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of  the  district 
attorney  whether  the  jury  could  separate  after  baving  been  empanelled  in  a 
murder  trial. 


TRIAL    OF    .lOHN    H.    SURRATT  115 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  whole  subject  was  a  matter  of  agreement  ])etween  coun- 
sel, and  lie  proposed  to  read  a  stipulation  that  the  defence  had  offered. 

The  Court  said  he  had  no  desire  to  hear  it,  because  all  parties  must  first 
agree,  and  it  was  for  the  court  to  decide  what  had  been  agreed  upon. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  the  defence  desired  to  have  the  last  juror  sworn,  and  then 
to  allow  the  jurors  to  separate  until  Monday  morning. 

The  Court  said  he  did  not  wish  to  hear  the  contents  of  any  agreement, 
unless  it  had  been  consented  to  on  all  sides. 

Mr,  Bradley  asked  if  the  counsel  should  agree  that  the  jury  should  be  dis- 
charged, whether  such  agreement  would  meet  the  approval  of  the  court. 

The  Court  said  he  Avas  clearly  of  the  opinion  that,  under  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, the  jury  must  be  empanelled  and  sworn.  The  act  uses  the  word 
panelled,  but  the  panel  is  not  completed  until  the  jury  is  sworn.  The  word 
panelled  was  a  technical  word,  but  it  had  evidently  been  used  by  the  lawmaker 
in  its  proper  sense,  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  all  the  jurors  shall  be  sworn, 

Mr.  Birth,  the  twelfth  juror  selected,  was  then  sworn. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that,  with  the  permission  of  the  court,  he  would  submit  a 
motion  that  the  indictment  should  not  be  read,  or  the  jury  fully  charged  in  the 
case,  until  Monday  morning,  and  that  some  stipulation  be  agreed  upon  whereby 
the  jury  should  be  discharged. 

The  counsel  for  the  prosecution  wrote  out  a  stipulation  to  the  effect  that  the 
jury  might  be  discharged  until  Monday  morning,  with  the  consent  of  the  court, 
and  without  prejudice  to  either  party. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  they  could  not  consent  to  that.  The  defence  offered  a 
stipulation  that  the  same  jury  should  be  retained,  and  that  there  should  be  no 
prejudice  to  either  party,  in  order  that  some  of  the  questions  that  had  heretofore 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  court  might  again  arise.  The  defence  made  the 
offer,  and  it  was  for  the  prosecution  to  accept  or  reject. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  the  defence  should  accept  the  proposition  of  the  pro- 
secution, or  the  whole  question  was  at  an  end. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  the  prosecution  had  so  modified  the  stipulation  submitted 
by  the  defence  as  to  make  much  difference.  Under  the  stipulation  offered  by 
the  prosecution  the  whole  subject  may  be  brought  up,  and  the  court  may  be  asked 
to  act  anew. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  the  stipulation  of  the  prosecution  was  that,  if  the  court 
consented,  the  jury  might  separate  without  prejudice  to  either  party. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  defence  stipulated  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  the 
question  from  being  reopened,  while  the  stipulation  of  the  prosecution  leaves  the 
whole  subject  open. 

The  Court  said  it  appeared  counsel  could  not  agree,  and  he  would,  there- 
fore, put  the  jury  in  charge  of  the  bailiff. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  the  stipulation  offered  by  the  defence  covered  a  great 
deal.  The  prosecution  was  willing  to  stipulate  that  the  jury  should  separate, 
but  they  could  not  agree  to  waive  their  exception  to  the  mode  of  empanelling 
the  jury.     They  were  willing  to  take  this  jury,  however. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  prosecution,  it  appeared,  were  willing  to  take  this  jury, 
but  proposed  to  raise  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the  panel.  It  was  this  that 
the  defence  wanted  to  prevent,  as  they  desired  not  to  open  the  question  of  the 
legality  of  the  panel  on  Monday. 

The  Court  said,  he  understood  that  the  prosecution  was  not  willing  to  waive 
the  exception  they  had  taken  to  the  empanelling  of  the  jury. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  would  state  candidly  that  the  prosecution  desired 
this  jury,  as  they  believed  them  to  be  good  and  fair  men,  and  that  was  all  they 
had  wanted.  If,  on  Monday,  it  should  appear  to  the  court  that  the  jury  was  not 
legally  empanelled,  Judge  Cartter,  who  would  be  here  at  t'lat  time,  could  dis- 


116  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT- 

charge  the  juiy,  aad  immediately  subpoena  them  ovei-.  They  would  agree  to 
any  reasonable  stipulation,  but  they  wanted  all  things  done  fairly,  as  the  trial 
promised  to  be  a  long  and  tedious  one. 

Mr.  ]klRRRlCK  argued  that  to  make  the  trial  legal  the  jury  should  be  em- 
panelled to-night.  On  Monday  Judge  Cartter  would  open  the  June  term  of  the 
criminal  court,  and  it  was  necessary  that  the  jury  should  be  empanelled  at  this 
term. 

Mr.  Bradlky  said  that  the  whole  action  of  the  prosecution  seemed  to  look  as 
though  an  appeal  was  to  be  taken  from  the  decision  of  Judge  Fisher  and  Judge 
Wylie  to  Chief  Justice  Cartter,  and  it  was  to  prevent  all  objection  on  Monday 
that  the  defence  desired  to  have  an  explicit  stipulation  consented  to.  If  the 
prosecution  desired  to  have  the  jury  separate,  they  could  agree  to  that  stipula- 
tion. 

The  District  Attorxev  said  it  seemed  to  him  that  the  stipulation  of  the 
United  States  was  perfectly  fair,  namely  :  That  the  jury  separate  until  Monday 
A\athout  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  either  party. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  objection  have  you  to  our  stipulation  1  We  have  not 
heard  it  yet. 

Assistant  District  Attorney  Wilso.n.  We  have  an  exception  on  tile  to  the 
empanelling  of  the  jury.  The  other  side  asks  us  to  deprive  ourselves  of  that 
advantage. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  will  accept  that,  and  will  modify  our  proposition  in  that 
way,  but  not  deprive  ourselves  of  the  right  of  the  trial  by  jury. 

Mr.  Merrick  was  willing  to  say  that  the  terms  of  the  stipulation  were  not  to 
apply  to  any  exception  taken  by  the  United  States,  or  appeal  to  the  court  in 
general  term. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  If  you  are  willing  to  let  the  jury  separate,  and  the  case 
stands  as  it  does  now  until  Monday,  this  stipulation  covers  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Counsel  on  the  other  side  have  stated  their  object  to  be  to  save 
this  exception.     If  there  is  anything  else  to  save,  let  us  know. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  We  only  wish  to  give  the  jury  the  benefit  of  a  separation. 
We  don't  wish  either  party  to  waive  any  right. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  gentleman  stated  the  question  about  the  empanelling  of 
the  jury  which  Judge  Cartter  may  entertain  on  Monday;  but  there  was  no  ex- 
ception Judge  Cartter  could  entertain.  It  could  only  be  entertained  by  the  court 
in  general  term. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  have  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  gentleman  said  the  exception  might  come  before  Judge 
Cartter. 

Mr.  PiERREPOi\T.  I  said  whoever  might  preside ;  and  to  avoid  any  question 
about  the  mode  of  empanelling  the  jury,  we  are  read}'  to  stipulate  that  this  same 
jury  shall  continue  to  be  the  jury  ;  but  we  did  not  want  to  have  the  question  en- 
tirely out  of  the  way. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  is  impossible  to  come  to  an  accommodation  with  such 
diverse  views.  We  want  the  jury  to  go  home  without  reservations  or  questions 
as  to  the  empanelling. 

The  Court.  Why  not,  gentlemen,  charge  the  jury  to-night  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  shall  ask  your  honor  to  have  the  indictment  read. 

The  indictment  on  which  the  prisoner  Avas  arraigned  was  accordingly  read  to 
the  jury. 

The  Clerk,  after  reading,  said  :  "And  to  this  indictment  the  prisoner  pleads 
not  guilty,  and  puts  himself  upon  his  country  for  trial,  which  country  you  are." 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  now  propose  the  jury  be  allowed  to  separate  till  Monday 
morning.     The  prisoner,  through  his  counsel,  asks  this  privilege  for  the  jury. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  117 

Messrs.  Pierrepont  and  Carringtox.  We  dou't  object.  We  offered  the 
stipulation. 

Mr.  Braulev.  Nothing  like  it. 

The  Covrt,  By  consent  of  counsel  ou  both  sides,  the  jury  will  be  permitted 
to  separate.  The  clerk  will  enter  this  upon  the  record.  To  the  jury :  Be  here, 
gentlemen,  on  Monday  morning  at  ten  o'clock.  I  do  not  know  that  I  shall  have 
the  pleasure  of  seeing  you.  The  jury  are  admonished  to  avoid  conversation  with 
anybody  on  the  subject  of  this  cause.  If  you  are  thus  approached,  you  should 
regard  it  as  a  personal  indignity.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  under  the  act  of 
Congress  this  term  is  extended.  I  shall  not,  therefore,  order  the  court  adjourned 
in  course,  but  adjourned  until  Monday  morning  at  ten  o'clock. 

The  court  was  accordingly  adjoiu-ned. 

Monday,  Ju?ie  IS,  1867. 
Criminal  Court — Associate  Justice  Fisher,  presiding. 

The  court  was  opened  at  ten  o'clock,  when  the  clerk  proceeded  to  call  the 
names  of  the  jurors  empanelled  on  Saturday,  when  they  all  responded. 

Mr.  Bradley,  Jr.,  then  rose  and  said  :  "  May  it  please  your  honor,  before  the 
district  attorney  proceeds  to  open  the  case  to  the  jury,  I  desire  to  present  an 
application  to  the  court  in  behalf  of  the  prisoner,  in  reference  to  the  procuration 
of  his  witnesses." 

The  paper  was  then  read,  as  follows  : 

To  the  honorable  the  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
holding  the  criminal  court  for  March  terra,  1S67: 

The  petition  of  John  H.  Surratt  shows  that  he  has  now  been  put  on  his  trial 
in  a  capital  case  in  this  court ;  that  he  has  exhausted  all  his  means,  and  such 
further  means  as  have  been  furnished  him  by  the  liberality  of  his  friends,  in  pre- 
paring for  his  defence,  and  he  is  now  unable  to  procure  the  attendance  of  his  wit- 
nesses. He  therefore  prays  your  honor  for  an  order  that  process  may  issue  to 
summon  his  witnesses,  and  to  compel  their  attendance,  at  the  cost  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  pro- 
vided. 

JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Sworn  to  in  open  court,  this  17th  June,  186T. 

Test :  R.  J.  MEIGS,  Clerk. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  merely  submit  the  motion  now;  your  honor  can  determine 
upon  it  in  the  progress  of  the  cause. 

The  Court.  Very  well ;  your  petition,  however,  I  will  remark,  it  seems  to 
mc  ought  to  indicate  the  witnesses  that  you  desire,  and  where  they  reside.  I 
may  be  mistaken  in  tliat  respect,  however. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  the  application  is  granted,  of  course  we  will  have  the  order 
drawn  up  so  as  to  conform  to  the  requirements  of  the  statute. 

The  Court.  Gentlemen,  are  you  now  ready  to  proceed  with  the  case  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  are,  sir.  i 

Mr.  Carrl\uto.\  said  the  assistant  district  attorney  would  (Spen  the  case. 

Mr.  Nathaniel  Wilson,  assistant  district  attorney,  then  addressed  the  jury 
as  follows  : 

May  it  please  your  honor  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  you  are  doubtless  aware 
that  it  is  customary  in  criminal  cases  for  the  prosecution,  at  the  beginning  of  a 
trial,  to  inform  the  jury  of  the  nature  of  the  offence  to  be  inquired  into,  and  of 
the  proof  that  will  be  offered  in  support  of  the  charges  of  the  indictment.  By 
making  such  a  statement  I  hope  to  aid  you  in  clearly  ascertaining  the  work 
that  is  before  us,  and  in  apprehending  the  relevancy  and  significance  of  the 
testimony  that  will  l)e  produced  as  the  case  proceeds. 


118  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    8URRATT. 

The  grand  jury  of  the  District  of  Columbia  have  indicted  the  prisoner  at  tiie 
bar,  John  H.  Surratt,  as  one  of  the  murderers  of  Abraham  Lincohi.  It  has 
become  your  duty  to  judge  whether  he  be  guilty  or  innocent  of  that  charge — a 
duty  than  which  one  more  solemn  or  momentous  never  was  committed  to  human 
intelligence.  You  are  to  turn  back  the  leaves  of  history  to  that  red  page  on 
which  is  recorded  in  letters  of  blood  the  awful  incidents  of  that  April  night  on 
which  the  assassin's  work  was  done  on  the  body  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the 
American  republic — a  night  on  which  for  the  first  time  in  our  existence  as  a  na- 
tion a  blow  was  struck  with  the  fell  purpose  of  destroying  not  only  human  life, 
but  the  life  of  the  nation,  the  life  of  liberty  itself  Though  more  than  two 
years  have  passed  by  since  then,  you  scarcely  need  witnesses  to  describe  to 
you  the  scene  in  Ford's  theatre  as  it  was  visible  in  the  last  hour  of  the  Presi- 
dent's conscious  life.  It  has  been  present  to  your  thoughts  a  thousand  times 
since  then.  A  vast  audience  were  assembled,  whose  hearts  were  throbbing  with 
a  new  joy,  born  of  victory  and  peace,  and  above  them  the  object  of  their  grati- 
tude and  reverence — he  who  had  borne  the  nation's  burdens  through  many  and 
disastrous  years — sat  tranquil  and  at  rest  at  last,  a  victor  indeed,  but  a  victor  in 
whose  generous  heart  triumph  awakened  no  emotions  save  those  of  kindliness, 
of  forgiveness,  and  of  charity.  To  him,  in  that  hour  of  supreme  tranquillity, 
to  him  in  the  charmed  circle  of  friendship  and  affection,  there  came  the  form  of 
sudden  and  terrible  death. 

Persons  who  were  then  present  will  tell  you  that  at  about  twenty  minutes 
past  ten  o'clock  that  night,  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  1S65,  John  Wilkes 
Booth,  armed  with  pistol  and  knife,  passed  rapidly  from  the  front  door 
of  the  theatre,  ascended  to  the  dress  circle,  and  entered  the  President's  box.  By 
the  discharge  of  a  pistol  he  inflicted  a  death  wound,  then  leaped  upon  the  stage, 
and  passing  rapidly  across  it,  disappeared  into  the  darkness  of  the  night. 

We  shall  prove  to  your  entire  satisfaction,  by  competent  and  credible  wit- 
nesses, that  at  that  time  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  then  present  aiding  and 
abetting  that  mui-der,  and  that  at  twenty  minutes  past  ten  o'clock  that  night  he 
was  in  front  of  that  theatre  in  company  with  Booth.  You  shall  hear  what  he 
then  said  and  did.  You  shall  know  that  his  cool  and  calculating  malice  was 
the  director  of  the  bullet  that  pierced  the  brain  of  the  President  and  the  knife 
that  fell  upon  the  face  of  the  venerable  Secretary  of  State.  You  shall  know 
that  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  the  contriver  of  that  villany,  and  that  from  the 
presence  of  the  prisoner.  Booth,  drunk  with  theatric  passion  and  traitorous  hate, 
rushed  directly  to  the  execution  of  their  mutual  will. 

We  shall  further  prove  to  you  that  their  companionship  upon  that  occasion  was 
not  an  accidental  nor  an  unexpected  one,  but  that  the  butchery  that  ensued  was 
the  ripe  result  of  a  long  premeditated  plot,  in  which  the  prisoner  was  the  chief 
conspirator.  It  will  be  proved  to  j'ou  that  he  is  a  traitor  to  the  government  that 
protected  liim ;  a  spy  in  the  employ  of  the  enemies  of  his  country  in  the  years 
1864  and  1S65  passed  repeatedly  from  Richmond  to  Washington,  from  Wash- 
ington to  Canada,  Aveaving  the  web  of  his  nefarious  scheme,  plotting  the  over- 
throw of  this  government,  the  defeat  of  its  armies,  and  the  slaughter  of  his  coun- 
trymen ;  and  as  showing  the  venom  of  his  intent — as  showing  a  mind  insensible 
to  every  moral  obligation  and  fatally  bent  on  mischief — we  shall  prove  his 
gleeful  boasts  that  during  these  journeys  he  had  shot  down  in  cold  blood  weak 
and  unarmed  Union  soldiers  fleeing  from  rebel  prisons.  It  will  be  proved  to  you 
that  he  made  his  home  in  this  city  the  rendezvous  for  the  tools  and  agents  in 
what  he  called  his  •'  bloody  work,"  and  that  his  hand  provided  and  deposited  at 
Surrattsville,  in  a  convenient  place,  the  very  weapons  obtained  by  Booth  while 
escaping,  one  of  which  fell  or  was  wrenched  from  Booth's  death-grip  at  t!ic  mo- 
ment of  his  capture. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  119 

While  in  Montreal,  Canada,  where  he  had  gone  from  Richmond,  on  the  10th 
of  April,  the  Monday  before  the  assassination,  Surratt  received  a  summons  from 
his  co-oouspirator.  Booth,  requiring  his  immediate  presence  in  this  city.  In  obe- 
dience to  that  preconcerted  signal  he  at  once  left  Canada,  and  arrived  here  on  the 
13th.  By  numerous,  I  had  almost  said  a  multitude  of  witnesses,  we  shall  make 
the  proof  to  be  as  clear  as  the  noon-day  sun,  and  as  convincing  as  the  axioms  of 
truth,  that  he  was  here  during  the  day  of  that  fatal  Friday,  as  well  as  present  at 
the  theatre  at  night,  as  1  have  before  stated.  We  shall  show  him  to  you  on 
Pennsylvania  avenue  booted  and  spurred,  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  fatal  mo- 
ment. We  shall  show  him  in  conference  with  Herold  in  the  evening  ;  we  shall 
show  him  purchasing  a  contrivance  for  disguise  an  hour  or  two  before  the  murder. 

When  the  last  blov,-  had  been  struck,  when  he  had  done  his  utmost  to  bring 
anarchy  and  desolation  upon  his  native  land,  he  turned  his  back  upon  the  abomi- 
nation he  had  wrought,  he  turned  his  back  upon  his  home  and  kindred,  and  com- 
menced his  shuddering  liight. 

We  shall  trace  that  flight,  because  in  law  flight  is  the  criminal's  inarticulate 
confession,  and  because  it  happened  in  this  case  as  it  always  happens,  and  always 
must  happen,  that  in  some  moment  of  fear  or  of  elation  or  of  fancied  security,  he, 
too,  to  others,  confessed  his  guilty  deeds.  He  fled  to  Canada.  We  will  prove 
to  you  the  hour  of  his  arrival  there,  and  the  route  he  took.  He  there  found  safe 
concealment,  and  remained  there  several  months,  voluntarily  absenting  himself 
from  his  mother.  In  the  following  September  he  again  took  flight.  Still  in  dis- 
guise, with  painted  face  and  painted  hair  and  painted  hand,  he  took  ship  to  cross 
the  Atlantic.  In  mid-ocean  he  revealed  himself  and  related  his  exploits,  and 
spoke  freely  of  his  connection  with  Booth  in  the  conspiracy  relating  to  the  Presi- 
dent. He  rejoiced  in  the  death  of  the  President ;  he  lifted  his  impious  hand  to 
heaven  and  expressed  the  wish  that  he  might  live  to  return  to  America  and  serve 
Andrew  Johnson  as  Abraham  Lincoln  had  been  served.  He  was  hidden  for  a 
time  in  England,  and  found  there  sympathy  and  hospitality  ;  but  soon  was  made 
again  an  outcast  and  a  wanderer  by  his  guilty  secret.  From  England  he  went 
to  Rome,  and  hid  himself  in  the  ranks  of  the  Papal  army  in  the  guise  of  a  private 
soldier.  Having  placed  almost  the  diameter  of  the  globe  between  himself  and 
the  dead  body  of  his  victim,  he  might  well  fancy  that  pursuit  was  baftled  :  but 
by  the  happening  of  one  i»f  those  events  which  we  sometimes  call  accidents,  but 
which  are  indeed  the  mysterious  means  by  wbich  Omniscient  and  Omnipotent  Jus- 
tice reveals  and  punishes  the  doers  of  evil,  he  was  discovered  by  an  acquaintance 
of  his  boyhood.  When  denial  would  not  avail  he  admitted  his  identity,  and 
avowed  his  guilt  in  these  memorable  words:  "  I  have  done  the  Yankees  as  much 
harm  as  I  could.  We  have  killed  Lincoln,  the  niggers' friend"  The  man  to  whom 
Surratt  made  this  statement  did  as  it  was  liis  high  duty  to  do — he  made  known 
his  discovery  to  the  American  minister.  There  is  no  treaty  of  extradition  with 
the  Papal  States  ;  but  so  heinous  is  the  crime  with  which  Surratt  is  charged, 
such  bad  notoriety  had  his  name  obtained,  that  his  Holiness  the  Pope  and  Car- 
dinal Antonelli  ordered  his  arrest  without  waiting  for  a  formal  demand  from  the 
American  government.  Having  him  arrested,  he  escaped  from  his  guards  by  a 
leap  down  a  precipice — a  leap  impossible  to  any  but  one  to  whom  conscience  made 
life  valueless.  He  made  his  way  to  Naples,  and  then  took  passage  in  a  steamer 
that  carried  him  across  the  Mediterranean  sea  to  Alexandria,  in  Egypt.  He  was 
pursued,  not  by  the  "  bloodhounds  of  the  law''  that  seem  to  haunt  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  prisoner's  counsel,  but  by  the  very  elements,  by  destruction  itself, 
made  a  bond-slave  in  the  service  of  justice.  The  inexorable  lightning  thrilled 
along  the  wires  that  stretch  through  the  waste  of  waters  that  roll  between  the 
shores  of  Italy  and  the  shores  of  Egypt,  and  spoke  in  his  ear  its  word  of  terrible 
command,  and  from  Alexandria,  aghast  and  manacled  he  was  made  to  turn  his  face 


120 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 


towards  the  land  he  had  polluted  by  the  curse  of  murder.     He  is  here  at  last  to 
be  tried  for  his  crime. 

And  when  the  facts  which  I  have  stated  have  been  proved,  as  proved  they 
assuredly  will  be  if  anything  is  ever  proved  by  human  testimony  :  and  when  all 
the  subterfuges  of  the  defence  have  been  disproved,  as  disproved  they  assuredly 
will  be,  we,  having  done  our  duty  in  furnishing  you  with  that  proof  of  the  pris- 
oner's guilt,  in  the  name  of  the  civilization  he  has  dishonored,  in  the  name  of 
the  country  he  has  betrayed  and  disgraced,  in  the  name  of  the  law  he  has  vio- 
lated and  defied,  shall  demand  of  you  that  retribution,  though  tardily,  shall  yet 
be  surely  done,  upon  the  shedder  of  innocent  and  precious  blood. 

Mr.  Bradley,  sr.,  said  the  defence  would  reserve  their  opening  remarks  to  the 
jary. 


EVIDENCE. 


Mo.NDAV,  June  17. 
The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Joseph  K.  Barnes,  Surgeon  General  United  States  army,  residence  Wash- 
ington city,  was  sworn  and  examined  as  follows  : 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Abraham  Lincoln,  late  President  of  the  United 
States  ? 

A.     I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  called  in  your  official  capacity  to  visit  him  about  the  14th  of 
April,  1S65  'i  If  so,  state  where  it  was,  and  what  his  condition  was  at  the 
time  ? 

A.  I  was  called  to  visit  him  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April.  I  found 
him  dying  from  the  effect  of  a  gunshot  wound  in  the  head.  I  remained  with 
him  until  he  died. 

Q.  State  where  that  was  ? 

A.  At  Mr.  Peterson's,  on  tlie  west  side  of  lOtli  street,  opposite  Ford's  theatre. 
I  do  not  know  the  number  of  the  house. 

Q.  Please  go  on  and  describe  fully  and  accurately  the  character  of  the 
wound,  and  whether,  in  your  opinion,  that  wound  caused  his  death. 

A.  The  ball  entered  the  scull  to  the  left  of  the  middle  line,  and  below  the 
line  with  the  ear.  It  ranged  forward  and  upward  toward  the  right  eye,  lodg- 
ing within  half  an  inch  of  that  organ.  That  wound  was  the  cause  of  his 
death.  He  lived  until  twenty  minutes  past  seven  on  the  morning  of  the  ]/>th. 
He  was  not  conscious  at  any  time  after  receiving  the  wound. 

Q.  Were  you  present  when  he  died  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  You  (vere  not  in  the;  theatre  that  night  { 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  at  Mr.  Peterson's,  on  10th  street,  I  understand  you  to  say,  where 
you  were  called  to  see  him,  in  this  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  post  mortem  examination  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  if  upon  the  liost  mortem  examination  you  discovered  any  new  fact 
that  you  think  it  important  to  state  to  the  jury,  or  whether  it  simply  confirmed 
you  in  the  belief  that  the  wound  was  the  cause  of  his  death  ? 

A.  The/>05(!  mortem  examination  merely  confirmed  my  opinion  of  the  night 
previous,  that  the  gunshot  wound  was  the  cause  of  his  death. 

Q.  Who  were  present  at  Mr.  Peterson's  house  at  the  time  you  were  first 
called  in  ? 

A.  Dr.  Stone,  Dr.  Lieberman,  Dr.  Tafts,  Dr.  Ford,  some  members  of  the 
cabinet,  and  some  officers  of  the  army. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  bullet  ? 

A.  I  did  ;  but  not  with  the  view  of  ever  recognizing  it  again. 

Q.  You  can  give  some  general  description  of  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  can  give  a  general  description. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  that  you  would  be  able  to  identify  the  particular  ballet 
if  you  were  to  see  it  again  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

9 


122  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

^.  Can  you  express  an  opinion  as  to  what  sort  of  an  instrument  this  was  in- 
dicted with  ? 

A.  I  call  it  a  gunshot  wound,  as  we  do  all  injuricf^  inflicted  by  projectiles. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  any  opinion  as  to  the  character  of  the  instrument,  whether 
it  was  large  or  small  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  a  wound  from  a  pistol  ball,  at  a  very  short  range. 

No  cross-examination. 

James  M.  Wright,  chief  clerk  Bureau  of  Military  Justice,  residence  Wash- 
ington, sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Will  you  examine  the  package  on  the  desk  before  you,  and  state  if  the 
articles  contained  therein  were  placed  in  your  official  custody ;  and  if  so,  by 
whom  and  when,  and  whether  they  have  been  in  your  official  custody  from  the 
time  you  received  them  until  now  1 

A.  These  articles  belong  to  the  government,  and  have  been  in  my  official 
custody  ever  since  the  records  of  the  conspiracy  trial  were  sent  to  the  office. 
These  are  exhibits  which  were  then  given  in  evidence.  They  are  all  marked. 
Here  is  a  ball,  and  here  is  a  part  of  the  skull,  (witness  removing  paper  covering 
around  the  articles  as  he  referred  to  them.)  This  is  the  pistol  that  came  along 
with  the  other  articles. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  ; 

Q.  Who  put  these  things  in  your  custody  ? 

A.  Judge  Holt.  They  came  from  the  War  Department.  I  believe,  after  the 
decision  of  the  commission  was  promulgated. 

Q.  Were  the  packages  when  you  received  them  sealed  up  or  open  ? 

A.  They  were  all  open  just  as  they  are  now.  They  have  various  m  uks  on 
the  back  of  them  which  I  never  read. 

Joseph  K.  Barnes,  re-called. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Will  you  examine  these  two  exhibits  (handing  witness  certain  articles  en- 
closed in  paper  covering)  and  state  if  you  ever  saw  them  before.  If  so,  when 
and  where,  and  under  what  circumstances? 

A.  I  recognize  in  one  of  these  papers  a  fragment  of  bone  that  was  taken  out 
of  Mr.  Lincoln's  head  on  the  morning  of  the  15th  of  April,  by  Dr.  Woodward, 
in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Stone  and  myself.  This  in  the  other  paper  (holding  in 
his  hand  a  small  piece  of  lead)  I  recognize  most  positively  as  the  shred  of  lead 
that  was  found  just  inside  of  the  wound,  on  the  edge,  and  taken  away  by  us. 
This  (holding  up  a  leaden  ball)  resembles  mOst  closely  the  ball.  I  could  have 
described  it  so  that  you  could  have  recognized  it  from  its  flattened  curled  edges. 
That  was  found  in  the  position  I  have  described,  behind  the  orbit  of  the  right 
eye,  and  buried  in  the  brain. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  pistol  there  ? 

A.  1  know  ihe  kind  of  pistol.  I  never  saw  this  one  here.  That  is  the  ball, 
however,  for  a  pistol  of  this  size. 

Q.  That  ball  resembles  in  appearance  the  one  which  you  saw  taken  from 
Mr.  Lincoln's  head  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  very  much  discolored.  I  made  a  cut  upon  this  ball, 
because  it  is  made  of  very  much  denser  lead  than  is  generally  used  in  balls.  It 
is  made  of  brittannia  rather  than  lead, 

Q.  Do  you  see  that  cut  now  ? 

A.  1  do  not  recognize  it.  it  is  so  much  discolored.  I  made  no  private  mark 
on  the  ball. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  123 

Q.  Suppose  you  state  now  whether  that  is  hardened  lead  or  not.  See  if  there 
is  any  mark  upon  it  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  eye,  I  cannot  detect  any. 

Q.  Was  there  any  mark  put  upon  it  at  the  time  of  the  post  mortem  examina- 
tion ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  Did  I  landerstand  you  to  say  you  cut  this  ball  ? 
A.  I  merely  touched  it  with  my  knife.     It  has  become  black  since  then. 
Q.  You  did  not  make  any  incision  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Wilson  : 

Q.  Who  made  the  jjost  mortem  examination  ? 

A.  Dr  Woodward  of  the  army,  my  assistant,  made  it  by  my  orders. 

Q.  You  were  present  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  Dr.  Stone  was  present  also. 

William  F.  Kent,  residence  Eighth  street  cast,  near  D,  Washington,  sworn 
and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  at  Ford's  theatre  in  this  city  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April, 
1865  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Examine  this  pistol  and  state  whether  you  ever  saw  it  before,  or  one  sim- 
ilar to  it  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  the  same  pistol  I  picked  up  in  the  box  the  President  occu- 
pied during  the  night  of  the  14lh  of  April.  I  was  present  during  the  play  ; 
heard  the  shot ;  saw  the  man  jump  out  of  the  President's  box ;  and  I  ran  round 
from  the  parquettc  to  the  entrance  of  the  President's  box,  which  I  entered. 
When  I  entered  it  there  were  two  men  present,  who  were  in  the  act  of  lifting  the 
President  out  of  his  chair  and  placing  him  on  the  floor.  Some  one  helped  a 
surgeon  up  from  the  stage,  and  he  asked  if  any  one  present  had  a  penknife.  I 
handed  him  mine,  and  with  that  he  cut  the  President's  clothes  open,  examined 
the  body,  and  turned  him  over  to  see  where  the  wound  was.  Not  discovering 
any  on  his  body,  he  run  his  hand  round  his  head,  and  then  said,  "  Here  is  the 
wound  ;"  "  here  is  where  he  is  shot,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  After  they  had 
carried  him  out  of  the  theatre,  I  went  out  also.  As  I  was  about  to  go  into  my 
boarding-house — I  was  then  boarding  on  E  street,  near  the  theatre — I  missed 
my  keys.  Thinking  that  in  pulling  out  my  penknife  I  might  have  pulled  out 
the  keys  with  it,  and  dropped  them  in  the  box,  I  turned  and  went  back  to  the 
theatre,  and  entered  the  box  again.  It  was  then  pretty  dark,  they  having  turred 
down  all  the  gas,  and  I  could  not  see.  In  moving  round  in  the  box,  I  knocked 
my  foot  against  something  hard  on  the  floor.  I  stooped  down  and  picked  up 
what  proved  to  be  this  pistol.  It  was  lying  close  to  the  outside  of  the  box.  I 
immediately  held  it  up,  and  exclaimed,  "  I  have  found  the  pistol."  Some  per- 
son present  told  me  to  give  it  to  the  police.  I  did  not  see  any  there.  Just  then 
a  man  who  represented  himself  as  Mr.  Gobright,  agent  of  the  associated  press, 
came  up,  and  being  vouched  lor  by  several  persons,  I  gave  the  pistol  to  him. 
The  next  morning  I  identified  the  pistol  at  the  police  station.  This  is  appar- 
ently the  same  pistol,  as  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  appearance  of  it.  It  was 
about  the  length  of  this  one. 

No  cross-examination.  * 


124  TRIAL    OF   .JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Henry  R  Hathbone,  brevet  lieutenant  colonel  in  the  regular  army,  and 
assistant  adjutant  general  of  volunteers,  residence  Albany,  New  York,  sworn  and 
examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  late  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States  ? 
If  so,  state  whether  you  saw  him  on  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  April,  1865, 
where  you  saw  him  that  evening,  and  all  that  occurred  from  that  time  until  he 
received  his  death  wound. 

A.  1  was  well  acquainted  with  the  late  President  Lincoln,  and  was  present 
with  him  on  the  night  of  the  assassination. 

Q.  State  all  that  then  occurred. 

A.  Ou  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  April,  at  about  twenty  minutes  past  eight, 
I,  in  company  with  Miss  Harris,  left  my  residence  at  the  corner  of  Fifteenth  and 
H  streets,  joined  the  President  and  Mrs.  Lincoln,  and  went  with  them  in  their 
carriage  to  Ford's  theatre,  on  Tenth  street.  When  we  reached  the  theatre  and 
the  presence  of  the  President  became  known,  the  actors  stopped  playing,  the 
band  struck  up  ''  Hail  to  the  Chief,"  and  the  audience  rose  and  received  them 
with  vociferous  cheering.  The  party  proceeded  along  in  the  rear  of  the  dress 
•circle  to  the  box  which  had  been  set  apart  for  their  reception.  On  entering  the 
box  there  was  a  large  arm-chair  placed  nearest  the  audience,  and  furthest  from 
the  stage,  which  the  President  took  and  occupied  during  the  whole  of  the  eve- 
ning with  one  exception,  when  he  rose  and  put  ou  his  coat.  He  immediately 
after,  however,  resi;med  his  former  position.  When  the  second  scene  of  the  third 
act  was  being  performed,  and  while  I  was  intently  observing  the  performance  on 
the  stage,  I  heard  the  i  eport  of  a  pistol  from  behind  me,  and  on  looking  round 
saw  dimly  through  the  smoke  the  form  of  a  man  between  the  President  and  the 
door.  I  heard  him  shriek  out  some  such  word  as  "Freedom."  He  uttered  it 
in  such  an  excited  tone  that  it  was  difficult  for  me  to  understand  Avhat  he  said. 
I  immediately  sprung  towards  him  and  seized  him.  He  wrested  himself  from 
my  grasp,  and  at  the  same  time  made  a  violent  thrust  at  me  with  a  large  knife. 
I  parried  the  blow  by  striking  it  up,  and  received  it  on  my  left  arm,  between 
the  elbow  and  shoulder,  and  received  a  deep  wound.  The  man  sprung  towards 
the  front  of  the  box.  I  rushed  after  him,  but  only  succeeded  in  catching  his 
clothes  as  he  was  leaping  over  the  railing  of  the  box.  I  think  I  succeeded  in 
tearing  his  clothing  as  he  was  going  over.  I  instantly  cried  out,  "  Stop  that 
man."  I  then  looked  towards  the  President.  His  position  had  not  changed, 
except  that  his  head  was  slightly  bowed  forward  and  his  eyes  were  closed. 
Seeing  that  he  was  insensible,  and  believing  him  to  be  mortally  wounded,  I 
rushed  to  the  door  for  the  purpose  of  getting  medical  aid.  I  found  the  door 
barred  with  a  piece  of  wood,  a  heavy  piece  of  plank,  which  was  resting  against 
the  wall  and  against  the  centre  of  the  door,  about  four  feet  from  the  floor.  The 
people  on  the  outside  were  beating  against  it.  With  some  difficulty  I  removed 
the  bar,  and  those  who  were  there  came  in.  When  I  returned  into  the  box  I 
found  that  they  were  examining  the  person  of  the  President,  but  had  not  y6t 
found  the  wound.  When  it  had  been  discovered  it  was  determined  to  remove 
him  from  the  theatre,  and  I  with  some  assistants  went  with  Mrs.  Lincoln  to  the 
house  on  Tenth  street  opposite  the  theatre. 

Q.  Will  you  state  your  relative  positions  I  In  the  first  place,  who  were  in 
the  box  occupied  by  the  President  besides  yourself? 

A.  President  Lincoln,  Mrs.  Lincoln,  and  Miss  Harris.  President  Lincoln  was 
sitting  at  that  part  of  the  box  furthest  from  the  stage  and  nearest  the  audience. 
Mrs.  Lincoln  was  sitting  nearest  to  him. 

Q.  Toward  the  front  of  the  box  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  some  two  feet  distant,  probably.  Miss  Harris  was  next  to  her, 
and  I  a  little  in  the  rear. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT  125 

Q.  Did  you  get  a  good  look  at  the  man  wbo  iired  the  pistol? 
A.  I  did  not ;  I  only  saw  him  dimly  through  the  smoke. 
Q.  You  would  not  be  able  to  identify  him  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepomt  : 

Q.  Did  you  examine  this  plank  that  yoii  speak  of  i 

A.  Not  carefully. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  to  see  how  it  was  fixed  ? 

A.  I  merely  know  that  it  barred  the  door  and  rested  against  the  wall,  and 
against  the  centre  of  the  door,  and  that  I  removed  it  with  difficulty,  so  securely 
was  it  fixed. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  was  any  niche  in  the  wall  ? 

A.  I  did  not  notice. 

Q.  Nor  how  it  was  fastened  against  the  door  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SES.SION. 

Joseph  B.  Stewart,  residence  Westchester  county,  New  York,  sworn  and 
examined. 

By  the  Di>;tru  t  Attorney  : 

Q.  You  have  resided  in  Washington  city  ? 

A.  I  resided  in  Washington  city  for  a  time. 

Q.  And  practiced  at  this  bar  1 

A.  And  practiced  at  this  bar  in  this  court ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  whether  you  were  at  Ford's  theatre,  in  this  city,  on  the 
night  of  the  14th  of  April,  1865.  If  so,  state  your  position  at  the  time,  and 
everyihing  that  occurred  there  under  your  observation,  connected  with  the  as- 
sassination of , the  late  President  of  the  United  States. 

A.  I  was  at  Ford's  theatre  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April.  I  went  in 
company  with  my  sister,  or  sister-in-law,  and  two  either  ladies.  I  occupied  four 
seats  directly  in  front  of  the  orchestra.  To  illustrate  what  I  want  to  say  :  the 
theatre  is  divided  by  two  aisles  one  on  the  left  and  one  on  the  right.  I  was 
seated  in  the  left-hand  corner  chair  (looking  towards  the  stage)  on  the  right- 
hand  aisle.  The  four  seats  I  had  taken  would  commence  with  the  corner ;  I 
occupying  the  corner  seat,  and  the  three  on  my  left.  I  Avas  just  in  a  position 
where  I  could  see  everything  on  the  stage,  and  off  at  an  angle  could  see  the 
President  and  the  company  who  were  with  him.  A  young  lady  sat  next  him, 
and  then  a  gentleman  who  I  knew  to  be  JMajor  Rathbone.  I  believe  Mrs. 
Lincoln  sat  next.  They  were  in  a  second-tier  box,  and  just  in  a  position  where 
I  could  see  from  the  breast  up,  of  the  President,  and  the  upper  portion  of  the 
breast  and  face  of  the  other  persons  in  the  box.  I  frequently  noticed  the  box 
during  the  performance,  and  more  than  once  had  occasion  to  remark  on  the 
presence  of  the  President,  and  his  appearance.  At  the  moment  of  t.ie  oc- 
currence I  am  about  to  state,  there  was  a  pause,  a  sort  of  interlude,  when,  while 
not  looking  straight  at  the  box,  I  saw  a  flash  and  heard  the  report  of  a  pistol  or 
gun,  a  clear  report  like  that  of  a  shotted  gun.  Any  one  at  all  accustomed  to 
hear  the  report  of  a  gun  can  tell  the  difference.  I,  at  the  moment,  was  speak- 
ing to  my  sister,  and  on  raising  my  head,  and  directing  my  attention  to  the 
box,  I  saw,  at  the  same  instant,  a  man  coming  over  the  balustrade,  and  noticed 
the  curl  of  smoke  right  immediately  above  him,  as  he  was  in  a  crouching  posi- 
tion, in  the  act  of  leaping  out  of  the  box.  It  was  slowly  sailing  out  from  the  box. 
As  he  cleared  the  box  I  heard  him  exclaim,  "  Sic  semper  tyrannise  That  ex- 
clamation had  escaped  his  lips  before  he  reached  the  stage  below.     This  person 


126  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

came  down  to  the  stage  with  his  back  to  the  audience,  crouched  as  he  fell,  and 
came  down  upon  his  knees  with  a  considerable  jar,  but  rose  instantly  with  his 
face  turned  full  upon  the  audience.  I  noticed  at  the  same  instant  that  he  held 
a  very  k^ge  knife  in  his  hand.  At  the  moment  he  rose,  and  by  the  time  he 
was  fully  up,  with  his  face  to  the  audience,  my  attention  was  fixed  right  on  him. 
I  rose  up,  stepped  forward  on  the  balustrade  of  the  orchestra,  but  it  seemed  to 
project  over  with  a  sort  of  cushion  or  something,  and  my  foot  slipped.  I  step- 
ped into  the  chair  I  occupied  and  jumped  over  on  to  the  stage,  keeping  my  eyes 
distinctly  on  the  movements  of  this  man,  who  I  thought  I  recognized  when  I 
looked  into  his  face.  As  I  made  my  second  step  I  threw  my  eye  back  to  the 
bos,  and  could  see  the  other  persons,  but  could  no  longer  see  the  President. 
He  had  disappeared  from  my  view.  When  I  reached  the  stage  this  man  crossed 
rapidly,  not  in  a  full  run,  but  in  a  quick  springing  walk,  over  to  the  left-hand 
side  of  the  stage.  I  saw  him  disappear  in  the  passage  leading  to  the  rear  of 
the  building.  I  crossed  the  stage  in  less  time  then  he  did,  considerably.  I  ran 
across  the  stage  with  all  my  might  I  said  to  persons  on  the  stage,  "  Stop  that 
man  ;  he  has  shot  the  President."  When  I  turned  around  towards  the  back 
building,  and  had  gone  perhaps  a  second  or  third  step,  I  heard  the  door  slam  at 
the  end  of  the  passage.  As  many  as  five  persons,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  whom 
I  would  suppose,  from  their  appearance  and  action,  belonged  to  the  stage,  came 
into  the  passage.  They  were  in  a  great  state  of  excitement,  and  somewhat  ob- 
structed my  movements,  particularly  one  lady,  who  seemed  to  be  wild  with  ex- 
citement.    Near  the  door,  as  I  approached  it,  I  noticed  a  man  standing. 

Q.  Near  the  back  door  1 

A,  Yes,  near  the  door,  which  evidently  had  slammed,  and  through  which  I 
passed  out.  When  I  first  observed  him,  his  face  was  turned  towards  the  door. 
He  gradually  turned  towards  me,  but  in  a  very  quiet  manner ;  did  not  show 
any  of  that  measure  of  excitement  and  agitation  which  characterized  everybody 
else  I  saw.  I  exclaimed  again,  and  heard  somebody  say,  "  He  is  getting  on  a 
horse."  By  this  time  I  was  at  the  door.  All  this  occurred  in  less  time  than  I 
am  telling  it.  When  I  reached  the  door,  which  was  in  an  instant,  I  first  took 
hold  of  the  hinge  side,  then  changed  to  the  other  side,  and  opened  it.  I  heard 
the  tramping  of  the  feet  of  a  horse  outside.  I  passed  within  a  half  arm's  length 
of  this  person,  who  was  standing  in  the  position  I  have  mentioned,  and  who 
turned  his  face  toward  me.  As  I  opened  the  door  a  person  was  right  at  it,  and, 
as  I  passed  out,  directly  under  my  arm,  or,  I  might  say  I  passed  my  arm  di- 
rectly over  the  head  of  that  person.  The  action  of  that  person  was  much  like 
one  taken  by  surprise.  He  seemed  to  crouch  away.  He  either  might  have 
passed  in  to  the  door  behind  me  or  at  the  side  door.  He  seemed  to  give  way 
as  I  passed.  My  attention  was  not  directed  to  his  action  more  than  to  observe 
that  that  person  was  there.  My  attention  was  fixed  upon  the  movements  of 
the  man  mounting  his  horse.  He  was  imperfectly  mounted  ;  was  in  the  saddle, 
but  leaning  over  to  the  left.  The  horse  was  moving  with  a  sort  of  jerking, 
agitated  gait,  as  a  horse  would  do  if  spurred  or  touched  at  the  instant  of  mount- 
ing, describing  a  sort  of  semicircle  from  right  to  left,  as  I  have  had  a  horse  do, 
with  an  uneven  rein  drawing  him  a  little  to  one  side.  I  never  had  been  in  the 
alley  before.  I  did  not  know  even  that  there  was  an  alley  there,  and  was  dis- 
appointed to  find  it  there.  I  approached  immediately,  with  the  intention  of 
taking  the  rein.  The  horse  was  heading  round,  in  the  direction  that  would 
bring  his  head  directly  tow^ards  some  houses  there.  1  ran  as  fast  as  I  possibly 
could,  aiming  to  get  at  the  reins  of  the  horse.  I  got  up  near  the  flank  of  the 
horse  and  nearly  within  reaching  distance  of  the  man — a  stride  further,  and  I 
might  have  got  hold  of  the  bridle.  With  an  oath  he  brought  his  horse  round 
so  quick  that  his  quarter  came  against  my  arm,  so  that  I  gave  way  towards  the 
buildings.  Pie  then  turned  and  came  round  pretty  much  the  .■?ame  way  towards 
the  right  hand  side  of  the  alley.     I  followed  him  at  the  right  flank  of  his  horse 


TRIAL  OP  JOHN  H.  SURRATT  127 

as  1  bad  done  before  until  near  the  opposite  side  of  tbe  alley,  wben  be  headed 
him  round,  and,  crossing  the  alley,  I  noticed  that  he  leaned  forward,  holding 
firm  bis  knife.  Looking  upward  I  could  see  every  movement ;  wben  looking 
down  I  could  see  only  indistinctly.  When  near  tbe  further  side  of  the  alley  be 
brought  the  horse  up  and  headed  him  off.  At  the  moment  the  horse  made  the 
first  turn  from  these  buildings  over  on  to  the  other  side,  I  demanded  of  tbe  per- 
son to  stop.  I  bad  no  doubt  in  my  mind  at  all  who  I  was  speaking  to.  I  be- 
lieved I  was  speaking  to  John  Wilkes  Booth.  At  that  instant  some  person  ran 
rapidly  out  of  the  alley,  and,  after  hearing  a  few  taps  of  the  foot  going  out  of 
the  alley,  I  beard  two  clicks  or  something  that  echoed,  and  directly  a  shrill 
whistle  was  heard  over  towards  F  street.  That  occurred  while  tlie  horse  was 
crossing  from  the  left  over  to  the  right  hand  side  of  tbe  alley,  before  be  got  him 
directly  ahead.  As  soon  as  he  got  the  horse  headed  he  did  not  seem  to  get  him 
completely  under  control  of  the  rein  until  be  came  to  the  turn.  I  was  then  so 
near  the  flank  of  the  horse  that  if  be  bad  taken  another  step  in  that  direction  I 
could  have  put  my  bands  on  him.  He  then  crouched  over  tbe  pommel  of  the 
saddle,  and  rode  furiously  out  of  the  alley.  I  was  so  close  to  the  horse  at  the 
time  of  the  first  two  or  three  strides  that  be  sent  mud  and  dirt,  into  my  face  and 
bosom.  I  still  ran  after  the  horse  some  steps  ;  why  I  did  it  I  do  not  know.  It 
was  a  sort  of  feeling  of  desperation.  I  entertained  no  doubt  in  my  mind  on  the 
stage,  on  seeing  tbe  person,  of  being  able  to  lay  hands  on  him  in  the  house  or 
out  of  it.  I  beard  the  horse's  feet  as  he  rode  out  of  the  alley  distinctly,  and 
heard  them  again  in  what  I  would  take  to  be  over  F  street.  At  all  events, 
there  was  a  quick  sound  like  that  of  a  horse  crossing  a  plank.  Tbe  direction 
was  towards  tbe  Patent  Office. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  Who  was  the  man  you  saw  come  on  to  the  stage  and  cross  over  ? 

A.  That  man  was  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  an  alley  through  which  the  horse  went ;  please  state 
whether  the  diagram  banded  you  is  correct. 

A.  It  is. 

(The  witness  here  explained  to  the  jury,  from  the  diagram  handed  him,  the 
different  positions  in  the  alley,  and  also  from  another  diagram  the  different  po- 
sitions referred  to  on  the  stage.) 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  were  on  the  opposite  side  of  tbe  stage,  as  I  understand,  from  that  on 
which  Booth  jumped  1 

A.  Yes;  I  was  on  the  right-hand  aisle,  I  should  judge  about  twenty  feet 
from  the  extreme  right-hand  side  of  the  stage. 

John  B.  Pettit  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  Avhere  you  resided  in  April,  186-5. 

A.  On  the  14th  of  April,  1S65,  I  occupied  a  room  in  the  dwelling-house  No. 
339  F  street,  below  Tenth.  I  ate  elsewhere.  I  was  in  the  rear  part  of  tbe 
building.  There  was  a  back  building  to  the  house,  which  was  occupied  by  Mrs. 
Lindsay. 

Q.  Describe  the  position  and  relation  of  your  room  to  the  back  part  of  Ford's 
theatre. 

A.  I  was  in  there  that  night  or  evening,  and  was  not  out  till  the  next  morn- 
ing. The  rear  part  of  that  building  which  I  occupied  was,  I  suppose,  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  or  two  hundred  feet  from  the  rear  part  of  Ford's  theatre.  I  was 
in  my  room  reading  by  gas-light. 

Q.  Describe,  if  you  please,  any  sounds  that  you  heard  between  the  hours  of 
eight  and  eleven  o'clock. 


128  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

A.  Adjoiniug  Mrc-.  Lindsay's  house  there  was  an  eating  saloon,  kept  by  a 
Mr.  Gilbert.  The  rear  of  it,  -with  the  exception  of  a  small  tenement,  was  ad- 
joining the  theatre  lot.  Immediately  west  of  that  lot  was  a  vacant  lot,  which 
appeared  to  be  a  part  of  the  same,  and,  I  believe,  was  not  separated  from  it  by 
any  fence.  I  was  sitting  Avith  my  back  to  that  vacant  ground.  My  attention 
was  directed  to  several  low  whistlings,  as  though  they  were  signals.  I  do  not 
know  how  often  they  were  repeated,  but  sufficiently  often  to  attract  my  atten- 
tion, in  connection  Avith  some  other  noises  which  I  heard. 

Q.  State  where  they  appeared  to  come  from. 

A.  The  signals  or  whistlings  appeared  to  come  from  this  vacant  ground.  I 
stopped  reading  once  or  twice,  and  my  attention  was  so  much  attracted  to  it  that 
I  got  up  to  see  if  I  could  see  any  person,  or  what  there  was  going  on.  It  struck 
me  there  was  some  mischief  going  on — boys,  or  something  of  the  kind.  My 
attention  Avas  attracted  to  that  in  couuection  with  the  noise  of  a  horse — as  I  sup- 
posed, it  was  immediately  in  the  rear  of  me — which  appeared  to  be  very  uneasy, 
changing  his  position  on  the  paving  stones  back  in  the  alley  leading  to  the  the- 
atre from  the  east.  I  saw  nothing,  and  knew  nothing  until  the  next  morning  of 
what  had  transpired  that  night. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  heard  the  sonnd  of  a  horse  rapidly  retreating. 

A.  Yes,  I  did ;  some  time  after,  a  very  short  time.  They  appeared  to  be 
pretty  much  together — say  within  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  All  this  passed,  I  should 
judge,  in  fifteen  or  tAventy  minutes  or  less.  One  of  the  whistlings,  the  last, 
was  a  A'cry  loud  Avhistle. 

Q.  From  Avhat  direction  did  the  sound  come  'i 

A.  The  horse  Avas  A^ery  uneasy,  and  directly  after  this  uneasiness  had  taken 
place  the  horse  appeared  to  run  down  the  alley.  I  could  hear  his  hoofs  very 
plain;  as  plain  almost  as  if  I  had  been  in  the  alley,  if  it  Avas  in  the  alley.  I  do 
not  know  Avhether  it  Avas  or  not. 

Q.  This  was  about  the  time  you  heard  the  shrillest  Avhistle  ? 

A.  It  Avas  after.  There  is  an  alley  from  the  theatre  running  eastward  ; 
whether  it  Avas  in  that  alley  or  not  I  cannot  say ;   I  saw  nothing. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAV  at  Avhat  time  of  the  night  that  was  ? 

A.  Not  accurately;  it  was  pretty  late.  It  Avas  during  the  progress  of  the 
play.  I  could  hear  the  A'oices  of  the  actors.  I  frequently  heard  the  voices  of 
the  actors  from  the  room  Avhere  I  sat.  During  this  time  I  heard  the  explosion 
of  a  gun  or  pistol,  and  I  could  hear  A'oices.    I  do  not  know  from  Avhat  direction. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  by  the  side  of  Gilbert's  eating  saloon,  and  back  of 
it,  the  lots  Avere  vacant  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  there  was  an  alley  of  some  three  or  four  feet  between  Gilbert's 
eating  saloon  and  the  dwelling  where  I  resided.  Immediately  in  the  rear  of 
Gilbert's  saloon  there  was  a  vacant  space  of  twenty,  thirty,  or  forty  feet,  between 
that  and  the  tenement-house  occupied  by  a  man  if  the  name  of  Raidy.  Ad- 
joining that  Avas  a  A-acant  space  running  to  the  theatre  line,  on  F  street,  and  to 
a  tenement  of  a  man  by  the  name  of  Birch. 

Q.  So  that  there  Avas  free  communication  to  F  street  ? 

A.  I  think  there  Avas  no  fence  betAveen  these  A'acant  lots  and  the  theatre  lot, 
because  I  knoAv  these  Raidy 's  came  back  of  the  theatre  to  get  Avater  for  Avashing. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  immediately  Avest  of  Gilbert's  eating 
saloon  there  Avas  a  Aacant  lot  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  my  recollection  is  that  there  Avas  no  Avell-defined  line  between  that 
and  the  vacant  lot  running  from  the  theatre  to  the  line  of  F  street ;  but  if  I  re- 
collect right  there  Avas  a  board  fence  along  on  the  street. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Br.adlev: 

Q.  Y'ou  say  there  Avas  a  fence  ou  F  street,  across  the  vacant  lot  west  of  Gil- 
bert's saloon  :  I  understand  you  that  there  Avas  no  fence  on  the  line  of  the  alley 
inside? 


I 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUURATT.  129 

A.  No,  there  was  none. 

Q.  Let  me  understand  exactly  this  locality.  You  had  rooms  at  Mrs.  Lind- 
say's. West  of  you,  with  an  alley  three  or  four  feet  between,  was  Gilbert's 
t  eating  saloon  1 

A.  Yes ;  and  west  of  that  was  the  tenement  of  a  man  by  the  name  of  Birch. 

Q.  And  between  the  eating  saloon  and  Birch's  house  there  was  a  three  or 
four  foot  alley  1 

A.  No,  there  was  a  vacant  lot  of  perhaps  twenty  feet  between  the  saloon  and 
Birch's  house. 

Q.  Who  lived  next  east  of  Mrs.  Lindsay's? 

A.  Mrs.  Shinn,  34L 

Q.  Is  there  not  an  alley  just  beyond  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  is  a  frame  building  belonging  to  Mrs.  Barry.  Then  there 
is  a  carpenter's  shop  between  Mrs.  Moore's  house  and  the  hou.se  of  Mrs.  Barry, 
and  then  Moore's  house  is  on  the  corner  of  the  alley. 

Q.  Is  not  the  carpenter's  shop  on  the  alley  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  Moore's  house  is  on  the  alley. 

Q.  Is  not  the  alley  west  of  Moore's  house  ; 

A.  No,  sir ;  east. 

Q.  I  understand  you  then  that  your  recollection  is  that  there  was  no  fence 
running  on  the  west  and  north  sides  of  the  theatre  alley,  but  that  there  were 
vacant  lots  running  down  to  that  alley  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  there  was  no  fence  between  the  theatre  lot  and  this 
vacant  lot,  and  the  lot  occupied  by  Gilbert's  eating  saloon  adjoined  the  vacant  lot. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  the  testimony  of  Colonel  Stewart  ? 

A.  No,  I  did  not.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  accurate  about  the  fence.  My 
room  fronted  this  vacant  place,  and  I  was  there  for  several  months,  but  I  do 
not  recollect  about  it. 

Ja.mes  p.  Fergusox,  a  resident  of  Washington,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  at  Ford's  theatre  on  the  night  of  April  14,  1865, 
and  state  distinctly  and  as  briefly  as  you  can  what  you  observed  there  about  ten 
o'clock,  or  at  the  time  of  the  assassination  of  the  President. 

A.  On  the  14th  of  April  I  was  keeping  a  restaurant  right  adjoining  Ford's 
theatre.  Harry  Ford  came  into  my  house  in  the  afternoon  and  told  me  if  I 
wanted  to  see  General  Grant  I  had  better  go  into  the  theatre  and  secure  a  seat, 
as  he  was  to  be  there  that  night — he  and  the  President.  Harry  Ford  was  the 
treasurer  of  the  theatre.  He  came  into  my  house  along  about  four  o'clock  in 
the  afternoon  and  told  me  this.  I  went  in  and  secured  two  seats.  There  was 
a  lady  who  was  going  with  me.  I  secured  two  seats  in  the  dress  circle  right 
adjoining  the  private  boxes,  on  the  opposite  side  from  the  one  in  which  the 
President  was  in  at  night.  That  night  about  half  past  seven  I  took  this  lady 
to  the  theatre  and  occupied  these  two  seats  in  the  dress  circle.  The  President 
came  in  along  about  a  quarter  past  eight,  accompanied  with  some  other  gentleman 
whom  I  understood  to  be  Major  Rathbone,  and  two  ladies,  one  of  whom  was 
Mrs.  Lincoln ;  the  other  I  did  not  know.  They  took  their  seats  in  the  box,  and 
the  play  went  on  until  between  fifteen  minutes  and  half  past  ten,  in  the  second 
act  and  the  second  scene  of  the  American  Cousin.  I  saw  Wilkes  Booth  come 
around  the  dress  circle  down  to  the  door  at  the  entrance  to  the  passage  to  the 
private  boxes.  He  stood  there  and  looked  all  around  well.  A  few  minutes 
before  that  General  Burnside  came  in  and  took  a  seat  in  the  orchestra.  Booth 
looked  about  the  dress  circle,  then  into  the  orchestra,  then  stooped  down  and 
pushed  open  the  door  to  the  passage  leading  to  the  private  boxes  from  the  dress 
circle.  There  are  two  boxes  there,  but  when  the  President  occupied  one  the 
partition  was  taken  away  and  the  two  thrown  into  one.     He  passed  into  the 


130  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

little  liall  leading  to  the  boxes  where  the  President  sat,  and  I  did  not  see  him 
for,  I  suppose,  ten  or  fifteen  seconds.  I  was  looking  right  at  the  box,  for  I  was 
very  anxious  to  see  whom  he  was  acquainted  with.  I  understood  that  this  other 
lady  was  a  Miss  Harris.  I  wanted  to  see  whether  he  was  acquainted  with  this 
lady  or  with  the  President.  I  then  heard  the  report  of  a  pistol.  I  saw  him  go 
past  the  President's  head  and  come  right  over  the  front  of  the  box,  swinging 
around,  keeping  his  hand  on  the  box  and  letting  himself  down.  As  he  came 
down  he  struck  on  his  right  knee,  but  jumped  to  his  feet  again.  He  had  a  knife 
in  his  hand.     He  ran  across  the  stage  with  his  knife  in  his  hand. 

Q.  Where  did  he  disappear? 

A.,  He  passed  out  at  the  small  passage  where  the  actors  come  in.  There  is 
a  passage  on  each  side  of  the  stage. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  him  before  on  that  day  ? 

A.  I  forgot  that.  I  saw  him,  I  think,  about  one  o'clock.  I  went  to  my  door 
right  adjoining  Ford's  theatre  on  the  upper  or  north  side,  and  saw  him  on  a 
little  horse  out  on  the  street  talking  with  a  man  by  the  name  of  Maddox.  Booth 
said,  "Is  not  this  a  nice  horse  I  have  got?  It  can  run  like  a  cat."  Just  then 
I  started  to  come  out,  when  he  struck  his  spur  into  him  to  show  how  he  could 
run,  and  went  down  on  Tenth  street.  It  was  the  last  I  saw  of  him  until  I  saw 
him  go  into  the  box  that  night. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  play  was  it  when  you  saw  Booth  come  into  the  box  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  what  part.  It  was  the  second  scene  of  the  second  act,  I 
think,  of  the  American  Cousin.  What  part  of  it  I  do  not  remember  now.  It  is 
something  I  am  not  very  well  posted  in. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  more  at  the  time  you  saw  him  in  the  afternoon  in 
regard  to  his  horse  ? 

A.  That  is  all  he  said.  I  had  got  almost  out  to  him  to  the  curb-stone,  when 
he  started  off. 

Q.  He  did  not  say  anything  as  to  how  long  he  had  the  horse  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  are  not  trying  Booth. 

The  Assistant  District  Attorney.  I  am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  I  object  to  that  question. 

The  Assistant  District  Attorney.  Very  well,  let  it  go.  Give  the  full 
name  of  Mr.  Maddox. 

A.  James  Maddox.  I  do  not  know  his  other  name.  He  was  employed  at 
the  theatre. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  else  on  the  stage  besides  Booth  at  the  time? 

A.  Henry  Hawk  was  on  the  stage,  I  think. 

Q.  He  was  an  actor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  got  on  the  stage  next  after  him  ? 

A.  I  declare  I  cannot  really  tell.     I  think  it  was  Mr.  Stewart. 

Q.  Was  Booth  on  the  stage  then,  or  had  he  got  off  ? 

A.  I  think  he  had  got  off,  as  far  as  I  can  recollect.  There  was  no  person  on 
the  stage  when  Booth  was  on  it.  I  saw  Hawk  on  the  stage  about  the  moment 
Booth  had  his  knife,  but  I  think  he  was  the  only  one  until  Booth  had  passed 
clear  through  and  out. 

Q.  Where  was  your  seat  ? 

A.  I  was  right  adjoining  the  private  box,  in  the  dress  circle.  The  President 
was  directly  opposite  where  I  sat. 

Q.  Then  if  a  large  man  had  got  on  the  stage  while  Booth  was  on  it  you  would 
have  seen  him  ? 

A.  I  could  have  seen  him  well  enough. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  see  any  such  thing? 

A.  No  Due  got  on  the  stage  while  Booth  was  there.     I  think  no  one  got  ou 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  131 

the  stage  until  Booth  was  off'.     The  instant  he  was  off  Laura  Keene  was  on  the 
stage.     In  fact  there  were  a  half  a  dozen  there  in  a  moment. 

Q.  He  ran  directly  across  the  stage  and  disappeared  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  came  down  out  of  that  box  and  ran  out  across  the  stage. 

Q.  Hawk  ran  off  ahead  of  him  I 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  very  moment  he  got  on  tlie  stage  Hawk  ran  off,  and  then 
there  was  nobody  on  the  stage. 

Q.  Who  came  on  after  Stewart? 

A.  Two  or  three  soldiers,  I  think ;  I  do  not  know  where  they  camo  from. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  see  any  one  close  enough  behind  Booth  almost  to  touch 
him  as  he  was  coming  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  But  you  say  there  were  a  good  many  persons  on  the  stage  about  that 
time  ? 

A,  Yes;  the  moment  after  he  pased  out. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  some  persons  advance  towards  the  stage  immediately 
upon  his  ffilling  on  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   a  good  many  jumped  on  the  stage. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  Colonel  Stewart  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  is  a  large  man.  I  saw  him  on  the  stage,  but  I  do  not  recollect 
his  getting  on  the  stage  until  after  Booth  was  off. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  You  saw  liooth  go  off  the  stage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  saw  Booth  go  ofl'  the  stage  before  I  saw  any  person  on  it. 

Joseph  M.  Dve,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepo.nt  : 

Q.  State  your  age  and  occupation. 

A.  Twenty-three  next  August;  I  belong  to  the  United  States  army,  and  am 
a  recruiting  sergeant  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  In  the  regular  army  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  are  you  now  stationed  I 

A.  I  am  stationed  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  stationed  in  Philadelphia,  or  about  how  long  1 

A.  A  little  over  a  year. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  Philadelphia  from  ? 

A.  From  New  York. 

Q.  From  what  place  did  you  go  to  New  York  ? 

A.  From  my  home. 

Q.  Where  is  that  ? 

A.  Washington  county,  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  army  in  April,  1865? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Where  was  your  regiment  stationed  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865  ? 

A.  I  belonged  to  battery  C,  independent  Pennsylvania  artillery,  stationed  at 
Camp  Barry. 

Q.  Tell  me  where  Camp  Barry  was. 

A.  It  was  at  the  junction  of  H  street  and  the  Baltimore  turnpike. 

Q.  Give  us  a  description  of  what  direction  it  was  from  Ford's  theatre. 

A.  It  is  out  H  street. 

Q.  The  same  way  as  the  Capitol,  except  north  of  the  Capitol  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  was  your  camp  from  Ford's  theatre  ? 


132  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  presume  nearly  two  miles. 

Q.  Were  you  ia  Washington  on  the  night  of  the  murder  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Was  there  any  officer  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Sergeant  Robert  Cooper. 

Q.  Is  Sergeant  Robert  Cooper  here  in  town  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  seen  him  lately  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  to-day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  the  evening  of  the  14th,  at  the  time  of  the  murder  ? 

A.  I  was  in  an  oyster  saloon. 

Q,  Will  you  state  when  you  went  into  the  oyster  saloon,  and  from  what  place 
you  went  ? 

A.  From  Ford's  theatre. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  that  evening  did  you  come  to  Ford's  theatre  ? 

A.  I  arrived  there  about  half  past  nine  o'clock. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  ? 

A.  Sergeant  Cooper. 

Q.  Had  you  any  pass — were  you  allowed  to  come  there  ? 

A.  I  had  a  monthly  pass,  but  I  think  it  was  then  out  of  date. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  theatre  ? 

A.  I  was  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Were  you  sitting  or  standing  most  of  the  time  1 

A.  Sitting. 

Q.  What  were  you  sitting  upon  1 

A.  Upon  some  plank,  or  something  of  the  kind,  placed  there,  in  order  to  alle- 
viate persons  getting  in  and  out  of  carriages. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Lincoln's  carriage  there  ? 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  street  in  front  of  the  theatre  that  night  as 
to  its  being  light  ? 

A.  It  Avas  light  directly  in  front  of  the  door. 

Q.  In  what  way? 

A.  There  was  a  large  lamp  there. 

Q.  A  gas  lamp  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  as  to  its  being  gas  or  oil. 

Q.  State  Avhether  it  was  light  or  not. 

A.  It  was  light. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  the  temperature  of  that  evening  was,  whether  it 
was  cold  or  mild  ? 

A.  It  was  mild. 

Q.  As  you  sat  there  upon  this  plank,  what  was  Sergeant  Cooper  doing  ? 

A.  Sergeant  Cooper  Avas  moving  up  and  down  upon  the  pavement. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  Avith  him  while  you  remained  thei-e  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  While  you  were  sitting  there,  state  whether  there  was  any  change  in  the 
inside  of  the  theatre  as  to  persons  coming  out  at  the  end  of  any  act  1 

A.  They  did. 

Q.   State  what  that  was,  and  when. 

A.  Parties  came  down — I  presume  it  was  about  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  after 
we  got  there — and  went  into  the  saloon  below  and  the  saloon  adjoining  the 
theatre  to  drink. 

Q.  Were  there  quite  a  number  of  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURBATT.  133 

Q.  As  these  people  came  down  from  the  theatre  at  the  time  you  mention, 
whom  did  you  see,  and  what  did  you  hear  said  in  relation  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  car- 
riage ? 

A.  Before  they  came  down  I  heard  conversation  there. 

Mr.  Braulev.  We  object  to  that  conversation. 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT.  Before  you  answer  that  question  I  will  ask  you  another. 
State  whether  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

A.  I  do,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  John  Wilkes  Booth  was  one  of  the  persons  who  entered  into 
that  conversation. 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Now  state  what  it  was. 

Mr  Mkrrick.  We  object  to  the  question.  I  will  state  our  objection,  unless  it 
is  the  proper  order  for  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  to  state  the  grounds  on 
which  they  offer  the  declarations  of  Booth. 

The  Court.  You  may  state  the  ground  of  your  objection. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  ground  of  our  objection  is  that  they  propose  now  to  offer  the 
declarations  of  Booth  for  the  purpose  of  affecting  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  They 
have  established  no  connection  between  Booth  and  the  prisoner  as  yet.  I  state 
this  objection,  not  for  the  purpose  of  arguing  it,  but  in  order  that  counsel  may 
present  the  grounds  upon  which  they  make  the  offer. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  present  no  grounds.  It  must  be  apparent,  without  any 
sort  of  argument,  that  what  John  Wilkes  Booth  did  in  connection  with  this  mur- 
der is  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  We  supposed  that  possibly  might  be  the  ground  of  the  gentle- 
man'.^ offer.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  whatever  John  Wilkes  Booth  may  have 
said  or  done,  unless  they  connect  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  John  Wilkes 
Booth  in  that  transaction,  is  of  no  sort  of  consequence.  I  suppose,  if  the  prosecu- 
tion are  to  proceed  upon  the  ground  of  conspiracy,  they  must  first  establish  some 
connection  between  the  two  parties  ;  when  that  is  done,  how  far  the  evidence  may 
be  admissible  is  another  question.  But  until  that  is  done,  although  Booth  may 
have  killed  the  President,  and  fifty  other  people  have  been  connected  with  him — 
until  they  show  that  this  party  was  so  connected,  his  declarations  cannot  possibly 
be  evidence. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  We  state  to  the  court  that  we  shall  coiniectthe  prisoner  with 
it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  an  entirely  different  question.  That  has  never  been 
stated  before. 

Mr.  PtERREPONT.  Wesayitnow. 

The  Court.  Of  course,  if  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  fail  to  make  connec- 
tion of  Booth  with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  whatever  Booth  said  or  whatever  he 
did,  although  he  may  have  committed  the  murder  charged  agaiust  the  prisoner, 
his  declarations  could  not  be  testimony  against  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  As  the  gentlemen  now  put  it  upon  the  ground  that  they  ex- 
pect to  connect  the  prisoner  with  Booth,  it  is  entirely  within  the  discretion  of 
the  court  to  say  whether  they  will  permit  testimony  to  be  given  until  some 
apparent  connection  is  established.  This  is  an  enormous  case,  and  I  ask  the 
court  whether  they  are  to  be  allowed  to  continue  the  trial  of  all  the  parties  named 
in  the  indictment,  through  this  immense  mass  of  testimony,  before  they  offer  any 
connection  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  with  the  transaction,  or  will  your  honor 
advertised  beforehand  require  them  to  bring  forward  their  evidence  connecting 
him  with  it. 

The  Court.  The  usual  course  of  proceeding  in  such  case  is  to  tell  the  counsel 
that  they  must  use  their  discretion  as  to  what  part  of  the  case  they  will  present 
any  particular  evidence  in.     I  always  advertise  counsel, however,  that  unless  they 


134  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

connect  the  defendant  with  the  transaction,  the  testimony  will  all  be  thrown 
out. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Of  course  ;  but  I  will  say,  that  if  the  counsel  had  not  inter- 
rupted us,  we  would  have  connected  the  prisoner  with  the  transaction,  long  before 
this. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  All  I  can  say  is  that  I  interrupted  you  at  the  proper  time. 

The  Court.  The  court  will  exercise  its  jurisdiction  in  this  and  every  other 
case,  as  far  as  possible,  to  elicit  the  truth  of  the  whole  matter.  If  the  prisioner  at 
the  bar  is  not  connected  with  the  transaction,  the  testimony  will  be  ruled  out. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Proceed  now  and  state  what  you  saw  done,  and  what  you  heard  said,  by  John 
Wilkes  Booth,  and  with  whom  he  was  conversing. 

A.  The  first  who  appeared  on  the  scene  was  John  Wilkes  Booth  himself. 
What  first  attracted  my  attention  was  his  conversing  with  a  low,  villanous 
looking  person  at  the  end  of  the  passage. 

Q.  You  mean  by  low,  short  in  stature  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  but  a  moment  before  another  person  joined  them.  This 
person  was  neat  in  appearance — neatly  dressed — and  entered  in  conversation. 
This  rush  came  down  from  the  theatre,  and  as  they  were  coming.  Booth 
said  to  this  other  person  that  he  would  come  out  now,  as  I  supposed,  referr- 
ing to  the  President.  They  were  then  standing  facing  the  place  where  the 
President  would  have  to  pass  in  order  to  reach  his  carriage,  and  watching 
eagerly  for  his  appearance.  He  did  not  come.  They  then  hurriedly  had  a 
conversation  together ;  then  one  of  them  went  out  and  examined  the  carriage,  and 
Booth  stepped  into  a  restaurant.  At  this  time  all  the  party  who  had  come  down 
from  the  theatre  had  gone  up.  Booth  remained  there  long  enough  to  take  a  drink. 
I  could  not  say  whether  he  did  or  not.  He  came  around  and  stood  in  the  end 
of  the  passage  from  the  street  to  the  stage  where  the  actors  passed  in.  He  ap- 
peared in  a  moment  again.  This  third  party,  neatly  dressed,  immediately 
stepped  up  in  front  of  the  theatre  and  called  the  time. 

Q.  To  have  no  misunderstanding,  state  what  you  mean  by  calling  the  time. 

A.  He  stepped  up  and  looked  at  the  clock,  and  called  the  time  to  the  other 
two. 

Q.  That  is  he  stated  what  it  was  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  the  clock  ? 

A.  The  clock  was  in  the  vestibule  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  State  how  the  light  was  at  the  time  relating  to  the  face  of  the  neatly  dressed 
man  who  called  the  time. 

A.  I  did  not  observe  it  particularly  at  that  time.  As  soon  as  he  called  the 
time  to  the  other  two,  he  went  up  the  street  towards  H  street.  He  did  not 
remain  there  long,  but  came  down  again,  stopped  in  front  of  the  theatre,  looked 
at  the  clock,  and  called  the  time  again,  looking  directly  at  these  two,  and  seemed 
excited. 

Q.  That  is.  Booth  and  the  other  man  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii.  He  then  immediately  turned  his  heel  and  went  towards  H  street. 
It  was  then  I  thought  something  was  wrong  by  the  manner  in  which  these  three 
had  been  conducting  themselves,  and  as  a  soldier  I  had  a  revolver  in  my  pocket 
with  my  handkerchief  wrapped  around  it. 

Q.  What  part  of  it  ? 

A.  Arourfd  the  revolver.  We  wore  artillery  jackets,  and  the  revolver  was  in 
my  breast  pocket.  My  suspicions  were  so  aroused  that  I  unwound  my  handker- 
chief from  around  my  revolver.  It  was  not  long  before  he  appeared  again, 
going  on  a  fast  walk  from  the  direction  of  H  street. 

Q.  How  did  he  look  then  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  135 

A.  He  placed  himself  in  front  of  the  theatre,  where  the  light  shone  clear  on 
his  face.  There  was  a  picture  on  that  countenance  of  great  excitement,  exceed- 
ingly nervous  and  very  pale.  lie  told  them  for  the  third  time  that  it  was  ten 
minutes  past  ten  o'clock.  That  is  the  last  time  he  called  it.  It  was  ten  min- 
xites  past  ten  o'clock. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  And  that  was  this  time  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  the  person  said  three  times  that  it  was  ten  minutes  past 
ten  o'clock? 

A.  I  said  he  called  the  time  three  times,  and  this  time  it  was  ten  minutes  past 
ten  o'clock. 

Q.  And  the  other  periods  of  time  were  before  1 

A.  Yes  sir. 

By  a  Juror  : 

Q.  He  did  not  state  each  time  that  it  was  ten  minutes  past  ten  ? 
A.  No,  sir.     There  were  eight  or  nine,  or  ten  minutes   between  them.     The 
last  time  I  do  not  think  there  were  more  than  five. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPONT : 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  man  distinctly  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Very  distinctly  ? 

A.  I  did  very  distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  see  him  now  1 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  where  he  is  1 

A.  I  can. 

Q,  Tell  us  where  he  is. 

A.  He  sits  there,  (pointing  to  the  prisoner.) 

Q.  Is  that  the  man  ? 

A.  It  is.  I  have  seen  his  face  often  since,  while  I  have  been  sleeping — it 
was  so  exceedingly  pale.  He  hurried  up  towards  H  street  again,  and  that  is 
the  last  I  have  seen  of  him  until  lately. 

Q.   You  say  he  was  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  and  I  say  that  I  have  seen  him  since,  while  I  have  been  sleeping. 

Q.  Did  it  make  a  very  strong  impression  from  what  occurred  at  the  time  ? 

A.  It  did,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  Booth  do  then  ? 

A.  He  walked  directly  into  the  theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  call  anybody's  attention  to  this  at  the  time  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who? 

A.  Sergeant  Robert  H.  Cooper. 

Q.  Did  you  point  out  at  the  time  who  Booth  was  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  and  withdrawn.) 

Q.  Where  did  Booth  then  go  1 

A.  He  entered  the  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go,  and  who  went  with  you  1 

A.  Sergeant  Cooper  and  myself  went  to  an  oyster  saloon.  Sergeant  Cooper 
was  particularly  with  me. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  got  into  the  oyster  saloon  did  you  hear  of  the  murder  ? 

A.  We  had  not  time  to  eat  our  oysters. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  heard  of  it  1 


136  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  We  did  not  go  to  the  theatre.  We  hurried  right  up  H  street  to  the  camp. 
I  thought  a  detail  would  have  to  be  made,  and  as  I  was  first  sergeant  I  would 
have  to  be  there. 

Q.  Did  Sergeant  Cooper  belong  to  the  same  camp  1 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  both  go  up  H  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  we  both  went  up  to  H  street,  and  out  H  street. 

Q.  When  you  got  out  to  H  street,  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  We  passed  out  to  Camp  Barry. 

Q.  What  occurred  on  the  v/ay  ? 

A.  A  lady  hoisted  the  window  of  her  parlor,  and  asked 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  stated  that  he  would  not  press  the  question,  and  would  turn 
the  witness  over  to  the  defence  for  cross-examination. 

The  court  thereupon  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  10  a.  m. 

TLE.SDAY,  Ju?ie  IS,  1867. 

The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said:  If  your  honor  please,  when  the  court  adjourned  on 
yesterday  I  had  just  put  a  question  to  the  witness  Dye,  touching  what  occurred 
as  he  and  Sergeant  Cooper  hastened  from  the  oyster  saloon  up  H  street,  to  which 
question  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  objected.  I  Avithdrew  the  question  for  the  time, 
thinking  then  that  I  would  renew  it  on  the  cross-examination.  I  have  come  to 
the  conclusion,  however,  that  it  would  be  more  orderly  to  ask  the  question  in 
the  direct,  and  now  propose  to  do  so.  I  will  ask  it  in  such  a  form  that  the 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  can  take  whatever  exception  to  it  they  see  proper. 
The  witness  will  understand  that  he  is  not  to  answer  until  the  court  has  ruled 
upon  it. 

The  question  is  this  : 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday  that  you  and  Sergeant  Cooper  hastened  up  H  street. 
What  did  yon  and  Sergeant  Cooper  see  as  you  hastened  up  H  street  ? 

(Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  the  question  as  irrelevant.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  suppose,  may  it  please  your  honor,  that  all  the  inci- 
dents and  facts  that  transpired  at  the  time  of  the  murder  are  proper.  We 
suppose  that  a  signal-light  is  proper;  we  suppose  that  a  signal-whistle  is  proper. 
Such  have  always  been  allowed  to  be  given  in  evidence.  We  do  not  suppose 
it  is  necessary  to  prove  that  the  prisoner  gave  the  signal-whistle,  or  that  the 
signal-light  was  displayed  by  him.  I  repeat  it  is  our  opinion  that  all  the 
incidents  connected  with  a  murder  of  this  kind  are  proper  to  be  given  in  evidence, 
as  having  a  tendency  to  throw  light  upon  the  question  being  inquired  into. 

The  Court.  It  is  very  difficult  for  the  court  to  determine  at  this  stage,  with- 
out knowing  what  the  evidence  is,  whether  it  is  relevant  and  admissible.  I 
propose,  therefore,  to  let  the  answer  be  given,  and  then  if  it  be  found  to  in  any 
way  connect  the  prisoner  with  the  transaction — the  taking  away  of  the  life  of 
Abraham  Lirjcoln — it  will  be  regarded  as  proper  evidence.  If  not,  it  will  be 
ruled  out. 

To  this  rilling  Mr.  Bradley  reserved  an  exception. 

Examination  of  Joseph  M.  Dye  resumed. 
By  Mr.  PiERREPONT  : 

Q.  Please  state  what  occurred  as  you  and  Sergeant  Cooper  hastened  up  H 
street. 

A.  As  we  were  passing  along  H  street  out  to  Camp  Barry,  a  lady  hoisted  a 
window  and  asked  us  what  was  wrong  down  town. 

Q.  What  did  you  say,  and  what  did  she  reply  ? 

A.  I  told  her  that  President  Lincoln  was  shot.     She  asked  me  who  did  it. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  137 

I  told  her  Booth.     She  asked  me  how  I  knew  it.     I  tokl  her  a  man  saw  him 
who  knew  him. 

Q.  "Will  you  tell  us  what  was  the  condition  of  the  moon  at  that  time  ? 
A.  I  cannot  say  exactly.     I  disremember. 
Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  full  or  difterent  at  the  time  ? 
A.  It  was  light  enough  for  us  to  see  some  distance  on  the  street. 
Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  moon  was  up  1 
A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  believe  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  moon  was  then  at  or  about  the  full  ] 
A.  I  cannot  say. 

Mr.  Bkadley  here  interposed  an  objection  to  the  course  of  examination  being 
pursued.  The  witness  had  answered  that  he  did  not  recollect  what  the  condition 
of  the  moon  was,  and  he  did  not  think  it  altogether  proper  to  pursue  this  line 
of  examination  further  with  leading  questions. 

Mr.  PlERREPOMT.  Very  well,  sir;  I  will  not  press  the  examination  further. 
The  almanac  will  show  what  the  condition  of  the  moon  was  on  that  night. 

Q.  Please  describe  this  woman  who  opened  the  window,  and  with  whom  you 
had  this  conversation. 

A.  She  appeared  to  be  an  elderly  lady. 
Q.  How  was  she  as  to  being  stout  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  particularly.  She  resembled  the  lady  on  the  trial  of  the 
conspirators — Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  house  since  ? 
A.  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  number  ? 
A.  I  do— 541. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  which  side  of  the  street  it  is  on  as  you  go  np. 
A.  As  you  go   towards   the  camp — an  easterly  direction — it  is  on  the  right- 
hand  side. 

Q.   Is  there  anything  peculiar  about  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  recollect  the  steps  distinctly  as  they  appeared  that  night. 
Q.  Tell  the  jury  how  the  steps  are. 

A.  In  order  to  answer  her  question  I  had  to  go  up  in  the  direction  of  the 
steps,  which  are  very  tall. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  was  the  manner  of  this  woman  when  she  thus  ad^ 
dressed  you  1 

A.  She  just  asked  the  question. 
Q.  State  whether  her  manner  was  excited  or  not. 
A.  I  do  not  lecollect. 
Q.  AVhat  then  did  you  do  ? 
A.  Passed  on  out  towards  the  camp. 
Q.  Did  you  pass  swiltly  or  slowly  ? 
A.  Passed  along  as  on  a  fast  walk. 

Q.  At  the  time  she  opened  the  window,  state  whether  anybody  was  ahead  of 
you  in  the  street. 

A.  There  was  not.  We  met  two  policemen  a  short  distance  beyond  that, 
who  had  not  even  heard  of  the  assassination.  What  I  mean  by  that  is,  that  no 
pedestrians  had  passed  that  way. 

Q.  When  you  saw  Booth  and  Surratt  at  the  theatre,  just  before  this  occur- 
rence which  you  have  now  described,  was  Booth  disguised  1 
A.  No,  sir.     He  had  a  slouched  hat  on. 
Q.  Was  Surratt  disguised  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  short  man  who  was  with  him  disguised  ? 
A.  No,  sir.     He  was  a  villauous,  rough-looking  character. 
]0 


138  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  I  mean  as  to  the  disguise  of  tlieir  dress.     Was  tlie  dress  of  any  of  tliem 
disguised  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examiuatiou  : 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  is  your  age  ? 

A.  I  will  be  twenty-three  next  August. 

Q.  Where  are  you  from  ? 

A.  From  Washington,  Washington  county,  Pennsylvania. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  Washington  before  you  entered  the  army  ? 

A.  I  was  going  to  school,  and  in  a  printing  office  before  that  time.  Wash- 
ington is  where  I  went  to  school. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Washington  College  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  went  to  what  is  called  Union  School,  just  opposite  the  college. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  that  school  1 

A.  About  a  year  before  I  entered  the  army? 

Q.  What  year  was  that  ? 

A.  1S62. 

Q.  Then  you  left  the  school  in  1861  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  between  1860  and  1861.  I  do  not  exactly  remember  what  time 
it  was 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  school  for  the  purpose  of  going  into  the  army  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  left  the  school  to  go  with  Adam  H.  Ecker,  the  editor  of  a 
paper  there,  called  the  Washington  Examiner. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  with  him  before  you  went  into  the  army  ? 

A.  A  year  and  a  couple  of  months,  I  believe ;  somewhere  in  that  neighbor- 
hood. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  connection  with  the  paper  ? 

A.  I  set  up  editorials  and  such  things  as  that. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  We  do  not  wish  to  object  to  any  reasonable  latitude;  but 
does  your  honor  think  it  can  possibly  favor  public  justice  to  go  into  the  question 
as  to  whether  a  man  wrote,  or  set  type,  or  did  something  else  ?  If  your  honor 
thinks  so,  why,  of  course,  I  do  not  want  to  object. 

The  Court.  I  cannot  see  that  it  is  of  any  great  advantage  either  one  way  or 
the  other;  nevertheless,  it  is  responsive  to  the  preliminary  question  that  was  put 
to  all  these  witnesses,  as  to  their  age,  residence,  occupation,  &:c. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  All  I  desire  is,  to  suggest  that  there  be  some  reasonable 
limit  to  such  examination. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  understand  the  limit  to  a  cross-examination  to  be  the  daguerre- 
otyping  of  the  witness,  as  far  as  possible,  to  the  jury. 

The  Court.  You  will  proceed  with  the  examination. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 
Q.  Your  business  was  setting  up  editorials? 
A.  Yes,  sir,  and  locals,  and  such  things. 
Q.  Did  you  write  for  the  paper? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  you  were  sta- 
tioned at  Camp  Barry  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that,  on  that  night,  you  came  into  town  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  on  that  afternoon. 
Q.  What  time  in  the  afternoon  did  you  come  in  ? 
A.  In  the  evening,  just  before  dusk. 
Q.  What  time  did  you  have  tattoo  at  your  camp  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  139 

A.  About  nine  o'clock. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  were  not  there  at  tattoo  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  in  the  camp  ? 

A.  I  was  first  sergeant. 

Q.  Of  your  company  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Who  called  your  roll  for  you  at  tattoo  ? 

A.  The  first  duty  line  sergeant  generally. 

Q.  Did  you  have  permission  to  go  into  town  ? 

A.  I  generally  came  into  town  whenever  I  felt  like  it. 

Q.  That  was  your  habit  ? 

A.  I  was  quartermaster  before,  and  had  a  monthly  pass.  That  pass,  I  be- 
lieve, was  not  then  quite  out  of  date. 

Q.  I  understood  yuu  to  say,  yesterday,  that  your  pass  was  out  of  date? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  was ;  but  I  could  not  properly  use  it.  I  should  have 
handed  it  to  tlie  captain. 

Q.  What  did  you  mean,  then,  by  saying  that  your  pass  was  out  of  date  ? 

A.  Out  of  date  to  me,  because  I  had  no  right  to  use  it. 

Q.  Why  had  you  not  a  right  to  use  it,  if  it  was  within  date  ? 

A.  Because  1  was  promoted  from  quartermaster  to  first  sergeant,  and  should, 
therefore,  have  handed  it  in.  jNIy  duty  as  quartermaster  brought  me  into  town 
every  day,  as  a  general  thing,  for  rations  and  such  things  as  that. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  it  was  your  habit,  as  first  sergeant,  to 
come  into  town  every  day,  or  as  quartemiaster  1 

A.  As  quartermaster. 

Q.  What  Avas  your  habit  as  first  sergeant  ? 

A.  I  generally  came  into  town  two  or  three  times  a  week. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  permission  to  come  ? 

A  Yes,  sir,  often.  Our  captain  was  not  very  strict;  he  relied  upon  his  men 
to  do  their  duty. 

Q.  He  relied  upon  the  honor  and  integrity  of  his  men  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  that  you  were  acting  worthy  of  that  confidence  reposed  in 
you  by  your  commanding  ofiicer,  in  coming  into  town,  and  remaining  in  after 
tattoo,  without  permission  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  come  into  town  for  that  night? 

A.  To  see  the  torchlight  procession. 

Q.  What  did  you  go  to  the  theatre  for  ? 

A.  Because  I  ascertained  the  President  was  to  be  there. 

Q.  Did  you  buy  a  ticket  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not.  then,  go  inside  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  yesterday  that  you  took  a  seat  on  some  planks 
that  were  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  on  a  platform.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  composed  of  planks 
or  not,  but  I  presume  it  was.  It  was  a  platform  on  which  they  got  in  and  out 
of  the  carriages. 

Q.  You  took  your  seat  on  that  platform  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  with  my  feet  resting  on  the  pavement. 

Q.  At  what  hour  was  that  ? 

A.  About  nine  and  a  half  o'clock. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ? 

A.  Until  ten  minutes  past  ten — a  couple  of  minutes  after  that. 


140  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  drinking  saloon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  take  a  drink  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  remain  seated  on  those  planks  all  the  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  I  did.     I  took  my  seat  there  and  remained  there  imtil  I  left  the  place. 
Q.  Did  Sergeant  Cooper  stay  there  beside  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  walked  up  and  down  the  pavement. 

Q.  When  and  to  whom  did  you  first  communicate  what  you  observed  on  that 
night  ? 

A.  I  believe  I  first  observed  it  to  my  father. 

Q.  To  whom  next  ? 

A.  No  person  in  particular.     I  spoke  of  it  in  general  conversation ;   (after  a 
pause,)  Oh,  do  you  mean  my  suspicions  on  that  night  1 

Mr.  Merrick.   Yes,  sir. 

Witness.    To  Sergeant  Cooper. 

Q.  Who  did  you  first  tell  what  you  could  prove  as  to  what  occurred  on  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not  tell  any  person  any  such  thing  as  that;   I  only  told  them  what 
I  had  seen.     The  first  thing  I  knew  I  was  summoned  in  town  here. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  That  was  just  before  the  trial  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  when  you  came  here  after  being  summoned  1 

A.  I  went  down  to  the  provost  marshal's  ofiice,  and  from  there  to  the  old 
capitol  prison. 

Q.  Were  you  put  in  the  old  capitol  prison  1 

A.  No,  sir,  not  so  bad  as  that. 

Mr.  Mekrick  :  You  may  thank  your  fortune  for  not  being  court  martialed 
for  being  out  after  tattoo  ? 

Witness:  But  discretion  is  the  better  part  of  valor  sometimes. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  at  the  provost  marshal's  office  ? 

A.  I  saw  several  gentlemen  there. 

Q.  Who  talked  with  you  there  particularly  about  what  occurred  on  the  night 
of  the  14th  of  April? 

A.  The  officer  who  was  on  duty. 

Q.  Who  was  he  1 

A.  He  was  a  colonel.     I  do  not  know  what  his  name  Avas. 

Q.  What  were  you  sent  up  to  the  old  capitol  prison  for  ? 

A.  To  see  if  I  recognized  the  villanous  looking  person,  or  any  of  the  parties 
in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  examined  by  any  one  before  you  testified  at  the  military 
commission  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  some  questions  were  asked  me  at  the  provost  marshal's. 

Q.  AVas  that  the  only  time  any  questions  were  asked  you  by  any  officer  or 
person  in  authority  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  it  was. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  And  that  was  by  the  colonel  ? 

A.  By  the  officer  there  ;   I  believe  he  was  a  colonel. 

Q.  Had  he  not  a  uniform  on  ? 

A.  His  coat,  I  believe,  was  not  a  uniform  one. 

Q.  What  rank  had  he  on  his  shoulder  1 

A.  He  had  a  military  blouse  on.     To  the  best  of  my  knowledge   he  was  a 
colonel.     I  heard  him  addressed  as  colonel.     Whether  he  was  only  a  lieutenant 
colonel  or  a  full  colonel  I  do  not  know. 
By  Mr.  ]\[errick  : 

Q.  Were  any  photographs  shown  you  at  the  provost  marshal's  office? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  141 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Pid  you  see  any  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  they  were  busy  sending  out  for  different  persons  in  town.  There 
was  a  coat  brouf^ht  in  there,  I  remember. 

Q.  Were  any  photographs  shown  you  before  you  testified  at  the  trial  before 
the  military  commission  ? 

A.  There  was  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  arrive  in  town  1 

A.  Last  Monday  a  week. 

Q.  When  were  you  here  last  before  that  ? 

A.  I  was  here  the  10th. 

Q.  Before  the  10th,  when  were  you  here  1 

A.  I  was  here  in  March,  I  believe. 

The  Court.  The  10th  of  what? 

Witness.  When  the  court  met  before  and  the  case  was  postponed. 

Q.  Were  you  here  in  j\[arch  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  believe  it  was  March.     I  am  confident  it  was  March. 

Q.  Who  did  you  talk  with  when  you  came  here  last  about  your  testimony, 
on  the  lOtli  of  March,  as  you  say  ? 

A.  I  talked  with  General  Carrington, 

Q.  Any  one  else? 

A.  Mr.  Wilson,  sometimes. 

Q.  Any  one  else  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Sergeant,  in  looking  over  your  testimony  of  yesterday,  I  observe  that 
you  give  quite  a  succinct  narrative  of  what  transpired  on  the  night  of  the  14th 
of  April ;  mention  the  name  of  Booth ;  speak  of  a  villanous-looking  person, 
and  then  speak  of  a  third  party  neatly  dressed.  You  describe  the  latter  tlu-ough- 
out  as  the  "  third  party  neatly  dressed."  Can  you  give  any  reason  to  the  jury 
why  you  did  not  mention  his  name  in  the  first  instance  ?     You  knew  who  he  was. 

A.  I  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  until  I  was  called  upon  to  point  him  out. 

Q.  You  knew  his  name  ? 

A.  I  knew  his  name  after  I  had  seen  him. 

Q.  You  knew  his  name  when  you  took  the  stand  yesterday  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why,  then,  did  you  not  use  his  name  instead  of  referring  to  him  as  the 
"  third  party  neatly  dressed  1 " 

A.  Because  I  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  until  I  was  called  upon  to  point 
him  out. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  was  necessary  to  use  Booth's  name  ? 

A.  I  used  it  just  because  I  deemed  it  necessary  in  my  own  mind. 

Q.  Why  did  you  deem  it  necessary  in  your  own  mind  to  use  one  name  and 
not  to  use  another  1 

A.  I  did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  use  the  other  name  until  I  was  called 
upon  to  identify  him. 

Q.  Were  you  not  told  not  to  use  his  name  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not. 

Q.  Please  tell  us  what  was  the  position  of  these  three  men  when  you  first 
observed  them  ? 

A.  Just  as  I  gave  it  yesterday;  Booth  was  speaking  to  this  rough,  villanous- 
looking  person,  and  just  then  this  third  party  appeared. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  alter  you  had  taken  your  seat  upon  the  planks  'i 

A.  Very  soon. 

Q.  Five  or  ten  minutes  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  that  long. 


142  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  where  Booth  and  this  villanous -looking  j^terson  were  stand- 
iug  when  you  first  observed  them. 

A.  Below  the  door  next  to  Pennsylvania  aveniTc,  just  at  the  entrance 
between  the  saloon  and  the  door  of  the  theatre  where  you  enter  the  vestibule. 

Q.  How  for  from  the  wall  of  the  building  ? 

A.  Close  to  it. 

Q.  How  wide  is  the  sidewalk  ? 

A.  I  presume  some  fourteen  feet. 

Q,.  Where  did  this  neatly-dressed  third  party  come  from  when  he  joined  the 
two? 

A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  From  which  side  did  he  approach  them  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.     I  did  not  see  him  until  he  Avas  right  in  with  them. 

Q.  How  long  did  they  stand  there  together  1 

A.  For  some  time. 

Q.  About  how  long  ? 

A.  Until  that  man  began  to  call  the  time. 

Q.  How  long  about  did  they  stand  there  ? 

A.  I  presume  they  were  all  three  of  them  together  there  about  ten  or  twelve 
minutes. 

Q.  At  that  time  ? 

A.  They  were  never  together  afterwards — all  three  of  them. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  how  long  they  remained  there  together  conversing  ? 

A.  Well,  I  suppose  ten  or  twelve  minutes.  It  might  not  have  been  that 
long. 

Q.  Did  they  talk  loud  enough  to  be  overheard  1 

A.  No,  sir ;   only  Booth  in  using  the  expression  to  which  I  have  referred. 

Q.  Did  they  speak  in  a  whisper  1 

A.  They  did. 

Q.  Was  the  expression  you  speak  of  made  use  of  by  Booth  while  the  three 
were  standing  there  together  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  made  before  any  one  of  them  had  examined  the  carriage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The-i,  as  I  understand  you,  yon  now  tell  the  jury  the  two  were  talking 
together  when  the  third  joined  them  ;  and  that  that  was  the  first  time  you 
observed  them,  and  that  the  three  remained  together  ten  or  twelve  minutes  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  All  you  heard  was  the  exclamation  of  Booth,  "  He  will  come  out  now." 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  up  to  that  time  nothing  else  had  occurred  except  their  being 
together  and  talking  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  Booth  made  this  remark  what  did  they  do  ? 

A.  The  rush  was  then  coming  down. 

Q.  Let  us  have  the  remark. 

A.  "  I  think  he  will  come  out  now." 

Q.  What  did  they  then  do  1 

A.  They  lined  themselves  below  the  door ;  that  is,  towards  Pennsylvania 
avenue.  They  were  below  the  door  facing  the  space  the  President  would  have 
to  pass  in,  in  order  to  reach  his  carriage. 

Q.  They  were  then  below  the  door,  towards  Pennsylvania  avenue,  fronting 
F  street? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  looking  up  in  that  direction — just  facing  the  passage  from  the 
door  to  the  carriage. 

Q.  You  were  still  occupying  your  seat  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  143 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  what  order  did  they  stand  ? 

A.  They  stood  focing  that  space. 

Q.  Who  stood  nearest  the  theatre. 

A.  The  vilLain. 

Q.  Who  stood  next  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect ;  I  think,  though,  it  was  Booth. 

Q.  Who  stood  next  ? 

A.  The  third  party — John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  You  cannot  be  mistaken  in  what  you  have  said  about  their  position  ] 

A.  Not  at  all. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  yesterday,  that  when  Booth  said,  "  I  suppose 
he  will  come  out  now,"  you  supposed  him  to  refer  to  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  did  you  suppose  so  ? 

A.  Well,  I  presumed  so.  I  was  not  any  ways  excited  then  myself,  and  I 
thought  they  were  speaking  just  as  other  persons  would  who  were  anxious  to 
see  him. 

Q.  You  had,  however,  observed  them,  had  you  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  particularly  on  account  of  Booth  holding  conference  with  that 
villain. 

Q.  That  was  what  first  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  To  see  a  gentleman  talking  with  so  villanous-looking  a  man  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  also  observe  them  particularly  when  they  were  lined  ? 

A.  I  saw  them  in  their  positions.  Some  of  the  parties  coming  down  out  of 
the  theatre  passed  between  some  of  them. 

Q.  After  you  got  them  into  line,  what  occurred  next  1 

A.  President  Lincoln  had  not  appeared,  and  these  parties  who  came  down 
after  a  drink,  went  up  again. 

Q.  What  did  the  three  men  do  ? 

A.  Booth  stepped  into  the  saloon  adjoining  the  theatre  in  the  direction  of 
Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  What  did  the  villanous-looking  man  do? 

A.  He  remained  in  position  near  the  passage. 

Q.  In  or  out  of  the  theatre  1 

A.  Out  of  the  theatre,  right  against  the  wall.  He  never  changed  his  posi- 
tion while  I  observed  him. 

Q.  What  did  the  man  you  called  Surratt  do  ? 

A.  He  walked  out  and  looked  at  the  carriage  in  the  rear. 

Q.  Did  he  walk  around  the  carriage  ? 

A.  He  went  into  the  rear  of  it,  and  nearly  stumbled  over  my  foot  as  he  was 
passing  me. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  then  ? 

A.  He  came  back  again.  Booth  in  the  mean  time  had  come  out  of  the  sa- 
loon, and  stepped  into  the  passage.  Surratt  then  joined  them,  and  as  Booth 
appeared  from  the  passage,  Surratt  stepped  up  to  the  clock  and  called  the  time. 

Q.  AVhere  was  that  clock  ? 

A.  In  the  vestibule  of  the  theatre,  opposite  the  door. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  that  vestibule  1 

A.  I  cannot  exactly  describe  that.  I  know  the  clock  was  there,  that  is  all. 
I  think  it  was  right  above  the  "  delivery  of  tickets,"  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  it.     I  could  not  see  it  just  exactly  as  I  sat  then. 

Q.  Was  not  the  clock  right  opposite  the  door  ? 


144  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Tt  was  as  you  went  iu  tbe  vestibule. 

Q.  There  is  a  door  that  leads  into  the  vestibule? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  You  walk  into  the  vestibule  and  then  see  the  clock  right  in  front  of  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  man  whom  you  call  Surratt,  you  say,  stepped  up  to  the  door  and 
looked  at  the  clock  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  called  the  time. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  then  1 

A.  He  walked  up  towards  H  street. 

Q.  The  villanous  fellow  still  retained  his  position  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  Booth  do  1 

A.  He  stood  in  conversation  with  hira. 

Q.  How  long  a  time  passed  from  the  time  when  they  lined  themselves  oppo- 
site the  space  where  the  President  was  to  pass,  and  the  time  this  man  called  the 
time  ? 

A.  About  five  minutes. 

Q.  They  then  lined  themselves,  and  tbis  man  Surratt  examined  tbe  carriage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  went  wp  and  joined  Bootb  when  be  returned  fr-om  tbe  passage,  and 
that  occupied  five  minutes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  then  went  up  tbe  street  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  Bootb  remained  talking  with  the  villanous-looking  man  1 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  tbis  man  whom  you  call  Surratt  returned  ? 

A.  It  was  very  soon.  I  cannot  state  tbe  time  exactly.  It  might  have  been 
some  five  or  ten  minutes.     I  think  it  was  at  least  five  minutes. 

Q.  Did  he  go  up  the  street,  or  did  he  go  in  the  alley-way  that  leads  back 
into  tbe  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  be  went  up  tbe  street. 

Q.  He  then  returned  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  be  do  when  be  came  back  ? 

A.  He  immediately  stepped  in  front  of  the  theatre  again,  and  looking  in  the 
vestibule  called  the  time  to  those  two. 

Q.  Where  were  those  two  standing? 

A.  In  the  same  position,  just  below  tbe  door  towards  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  after  he  called  tbe  time  ? 

A.  Turned  on  bis  heel  and  started  up  tbe  street  again. 

Q.  Did  be  speak  to  them  1 

A.  He  just  directed  the  time  to  them.  He  was  very  much  excited.  That 
was  tbe  first  time  my  suspicions  were  aroused  of  there  being  anything  wrong — 
the  manner  of  those  two  conversing  there,  and  bis  coming  down  again  and  call- 
ing tbe  time  to  them. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  he  attract  their  attention  1 

A.  Tbe  moment  he  appeared  they  observed  him,  and  be  hallooed  the  time  to 
them. 

Q.  How  do  you  knoAV  they  observed  bim  ? 

A.  They  looked  at  bim. 

Q.  Did  he  look  at  them  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  to  them? 

A.  He  called  tbe  time  to  them. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  145 

Q.  Did  he  address  them? 

A.  He  could  not,  from  where  he  stood,  without  having  his  private  matters 
heard. 

Q.  That  is  your  conjecture  ? 

A.  That  is  my  conjecture,  and  my  conjecture,  I  believe,  is  right.  I  have  not 
the  least  doubt  of  it. 

Q.  He  did  not,  however,  in  point  of  fact,  address  them  1 

A.  He  just  told  them  the  time  in  a  very  excited  manner. 

Q.  And  you  said  he  could  not  address  them  because  their  private  matters 
would  thereby  be  revealed  1 

A.  He  could  not  address  them  unless  he  wanted  to  be  heard  by  persons 
all  around  them.  Men  engaged  in  such  plots  are  generally  disposed  to  be  a  little 
smarter  than  that. 

Q.  Did  it  never  strike  you  that  it  would  have  been  more  consistent,  if  he 
was  engaged  in  a  plot  like  that,  for  him  to  have  looked  at  the  time  and  whis- 
pered it  to  them  1 

A.  I  think  there  was  something  up  H  street  that  attracted  his  attention  as 
soon  as  he  called  the  time  to  them.  He  may  have  been  conferring  with  Payne, 
at  H  street,  for  all  I  know. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  it  likely  he  was  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know;  I  have  my  own  conclusions. 

Q.  Then  you  account  lor  his  failure  to  carry  out  what  would  have  been  the 
ordinary  course  of  a  man  in  a  plot  of  that  kind — that  is,  to  have  looked  at  the 
time  and  whispered  it — on  the  ground  that  there  was  something  up  H  street  that 
attracted  his  attention  ? 

A.  That  is  why  he  hurried  up  there. 

Q.  Is  that  the  reason  why  he  called  out  the  time  in  a  loud  voice  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  was  regulating  the  time  for  Booth,  Payne,  and  the  whole  of 
them  to  strike. 

Q.  He  was  a  general  commander  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  dream  that  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  was  regulating  the  time  for  all  these  men,  who  else  was  there  within 
the  scope  of  your  observation  who  could  hear  him  call  the  time  ? 

A.  No  one  else. 

Q.  How  far  is  it  from  the  theatre  up  to  H  street  ? 

A.  Two  blocks,  I  believe.  He  just  had  time,  in  my  estimation,  to  Avalk  uj) 
there  in  a  rapid  maimer  and  get  right  back  again  in  time  to  call  the  last  time. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  when  he  went  across  F  street  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  could  not. 

Q.  It  was  moon-light,  wasn't  it  ? 

A.  The  light  was  there  right  in  front  of  the  theatre,  and  it  kind  of  blinded 
one  in  looking  up  in  that  direction. 

Q.  There  is  one  point  in  regard  to  which  I  don't  distinctly  understand  you, 
and  I  desire  to  do  so.  I  asked  you  whether  it  Avas  not  more  consistent  that  he 
should  have  looked  at  the  time,  and  gone  and  whispered  to  these  men,  than  to 
have  hallooed  out  ?  You  say  you  think  it  was  because  he  was  regulating  time 
for  some  persons  up  H  street. 

A.  That  is  my  opinion. 

Q.  How  did  his  calling  out  the  time  so  that  other  people  could  hear  it,  help 
to  regulate  the  operations  on  H  street? 

A.  They  could  not  hear  it  on  H  street. 

Q.  What  did  he  call  it  for,  then  ? 

A.  For  Booth. 


146  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

Q.  But  you  say  that  it  would  liave  been  more  natural  that  lie  should  have 
whispered  it  ? 

A.  I  said  that,  did  I  ?  He  appeared  to  be  in  a  very  great  hurry,  and  hadn't 
time  to  whisper.  He  did  not  take  time  to  go  right  to  them,  but  stood  there  and 
hallooed  it. 

Q.  And  then  hurried  up  in  the  direction  of  H  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  cannot  say  that  he  went  clear  up  to  H  street,  but  I  know  it 
just  took  him  as  much  time  as  would  be  required  to  walk  those  two  blocks  and 
back  again  in  a  rapid  manner. 

Q.  He  was  a  neatly  dressed  gentleman  ] 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Most  gentlemen  who  are  dressed  as  neatly  as  you  say  he  was  carry  a 
watch,  do  they  not? 

A.  I  have  seen  cases  where  they  aid  not. 

Q.  Don't  you  think  that  a  conspirator,  moving  upon  time  and  seconds,  would 
be  likely  to  carry  a  watch  for  the  occasion  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  interposed  an  objection  to  the  present  Hue  of  examination. 
It  was  not  the  opinions,  but  the  facts  within  the  knowledge  of  the  witness,  that 
were  wanted. 

Mr.  Merrick  stated  that  the  witness  had  given  an  opinion,  and  he  thought 
it  but  fair  to  show  how  that  opinion  arose — its  absurdity,  and  the  bias  that  in- 
duced it.  However,  he  would  not  pursue  the  examination  on  that  point  any 
further. 

Q.  He  did  not  speak  to  them  ? 

A.  He  just  spoke  the  time,  and  then  hurried  up  towards  H  street. 

Q.  Huw  long  a  time  elapsed  from  the  time  of  his  appearance  until  the  time 
of  his  disappearance  on  this  second  occasion  1 

A.  At  the  rate  he  was  going,  which  was  very  fast,  just  about  the  time  that 
it  would  have  taken  him  to  have  walked  from  there  to  H  street. 

Q.  Five  minutes  ? 

A.  Well,  you  can  judge  of  the  time  it  takes  to  walk  two  blocks  as  well  as  I 
can.     He  was  walking  as  fast  as  he  could  walk. 

Q.  You  say  your  suspicions  were  very  strongly  excited? 

A.  They  were  at  that  time. 

Q.  Was  it  then  that  you  undid  your  handkerchief  from  around  your  pistol  ? 

A.  It  was  at  the  time  of  the  second  calling  that  I  undid  my  handkerchief 
from  around  my  pistol. 

Q.  What  did  the  other  two  do  after  he  left  there,  subsequent  to  the  second 
calling  of  the  time  ? 

A.  They  remained  there. 

Q.  In  the  same  position  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  and  in  deep  conversation. 

Q.  How  long  a  time  elapsed  before  he  came  again  upon  the  scene  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  was  not  as  long  as  before. 

Q.  What  then  occurred  1 

A.  He  then  called  ten  minutes  past  ten  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  was  he  1 

A.  Just  where  the  light  from  the  vestibule  shone  plain  on  his  face. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  else  about  there  at  that  time  1 

A.  Sergeant  Cooper. 

Q.  Anybody  else  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  some  others,  but  I  can't  recollect  how  many.  I  was  paying 
very  strict  attention  to  those  movements. 

Q.  When  he  called  the  time  the  third  time,  did  he  stand  in  the  same  relative 
position  to  these  men  and  the  door  as  when  he  called  the  second  time  ? 

A.  Just  about  the  same ;  but  this  time  he  was  very  nervous  and  excited,  and 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  147 

looked  directly  in  tlie  face  of  Booth.  My  suspicions  were  so  aroused  that  I 
observed  him  very  closely — even  the  movements  of  his  lips,  which  were  thin 
and  pale.  It  was  that  face  in  that  order  that  1  afterwards  saw  in  my 
dreams. 

Q.  How  far  was  he  from  Booth  ? 

A.  About  seven  feet. 

Q.  Booth  was  down  between  him  and  the  avenue,  was  he  not  1 

A.  Just  below  the  door  there. 

Q.  Was  he  on  a  line  with  Booth  ? 

A.  The  two  men  were  standing  against  the  wall,  and  he  was  standing  there 
in  conversation  with  them.  You  can  judge  the  distance.  The  rough  had  his 
back  against  the  wall,  with  his  face  turned  towards  the  outside  of  the  street — 
towards  the  curbstone.  Surratt  was  in  front  of  the  entrance  of  the  theatre, 
standing  a  little  nearer  to  the  theatre,  just  on  a  line   with  Booth  and  the  villain. 

Q.  But  one  was  standing  against  the  wall,  and  the  other  was  fronting  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  Booth  was  a  little  further  out  than  he  was.  I  presume,  if  a  bee 
line  had  been  drawn.  Booth  would  have  been  found  to  be  a  little  further  out 
towards  the  curbstone  than  he  was. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  after  he  called  time  on  this  third  occasion  ? 

A.  He  made  a  very  rapid  disappearance  up  towards  H  street. 

Q.  How  was  this  man's  beard  ? 

A.  He  had  uo  beard.  He  had  a  moustache,  but  that  was  a  very  small 
one, 

Q.  The  light  shone  full  on  his  face  from  the  vestibule  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  As  he  looked  at  the  clock  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  then  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  tell  the  jury  it  was  then  you  saw  him,  and  yet  you  did  not  change 
your  place  since  you  originally  took  it  on  the  curbstone  opposite  the  vestibule  ? 
That  you  could  see  his  face  Avheu  he  was  standing  between  you  and  the  light, 
and  looking  at  the  clock  which  was  in  front  of  him  ? 

A.  I  could  see  him  very  readily. 

Q.  Through  the  back  of  his  head  ] 

A.  No,  sir;  I  was  sitting  kind  of  below  the  point  where  he  was  standing, 
near  the  very  end  of  tlie  platform,  and  looking  in  the  same  direction  that  he 
was — only  his  face  was  turned  a  little  more  towards  the  wall  than  mine  was.  I 
could  see  his  face  very  readily. 

Q.  How  far  were  you  from  him  1 

A.  I  was  about  on  a  line  with  those  other  two. 

Q.  Those  other  two  were  standing  between  the  door  that  leads  into  the 
theatre  and  the  door  that  leads  into  the  restaurant  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  widn  is  the  space  between  the  door  that  leads  into  the  theatre  and 
the  door  that  leads  into  the  restaurant  ? 

A.  I  presume  some  fifteen  feet.     It  might  not  be  that  much. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say,  yesterday,  that  there  was  pictured  in  that  coun- 
tenance great  excitement  and  nervousness  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  there  was. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  John  H.  Surratt  up  to  the  night  of  the  14th  ? 

A.  Never,  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  AVhen  did  you  next,  after  that,  see  this  individual  whom  you  call  John 
H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  1  saw  him  here  in  Washington. 

Q.  When? 


148  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  saw  him  the  first  time  I  was  called  here  on  this  case. 

Q.  When  Avas  that  ? 

A.  In  March,  I  believe.  ] 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  In  prison. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  in  prison  to  see  him  ? 

A.  I  was  admitted  there. 

Q.  Who  admitted  you  ? 

A.  I  was  admitted  by  order  of  General  Carrington,  I  believe. 

Q.  Who  did  you  go  to  jail  to  see  ? 

A.  The  prisoner  said  to  be  Surratt. 

Q.  You  were  shown  into  Sunatt's  cell  1 

A.  I  was  shown  into  a  hall  where  there  was  a  man  walkins:.  He  was  not  in 
irons  or  anything  of  the  kind,  but  loose,  walking  along. 

Q.  How  long  did  yoix  remain  there? 

A.  I  remained  there  ten  or  twelve  minutes  in  conversation. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  what  you  came  for  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  represent  to  him  that  you  knew  him  1 

A.  I  spoke  to  him;  said,  "Halloo,  John."  That  was  after  I  had  looked  at 
him.  He  was  at  the  far  end  of  the  hall,  and  as  soon  as  I  spoke  to  him  he  came 
towards  me. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  in  your  dreams  since  then  1 

A.  No,  sir.  When  I  spoke  to  him  I  saw  the  same  excited  and  pale  coun- 
tenance that  I  had  after  the  assassination  in  my  dreams.  That  convinced  me 
beyond  any  doubt.  The  man  I  saw  in  prison  I  can  say  positively  was  the 
owner  of  the  fece  I  saw  in  front  of  Ford's  theatre  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of 
April ;  and  this  is  the  man  here.     There  is  no  doubt  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  have  known  him  if  you  had  not  seen  him  in 
your  dreams  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  His  face  is  as  peculiar  as  my  own — once  seen  not  easily  for- 
gotten.    I  have  a  great  memory  in  regard  to  faces. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  dreamed  of  him  1 

A.  Several  times,  while  I  was  thinking  over  the  occurrence. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  dream  of  Booth  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  the  whole  occurrence  in  front  of  the  theatre.  I  have  seen 
iJooth  among  the  rest  of  them. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  dreamed  of  Booth  ] 

A.  I  have  always  seen  him  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  dream  of  one  without  dreaming  of  the  other  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  Sometimes  Surratt's  face  has  been  pictured  to  me  alone  when  I 
have  been  in  a  deep  study. 

Q.  Then  you  dream  of  him  when  awake  as  well  as  when  asleep  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Sometimes  I  have  had  his  countenance  pictured  foirly  before 
me. 

Q.  Is  it  generally  accompanied  with  others  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  he  looking  at  you  when  you  dream  of  him,  or  looking  at  somebody 
else  1 

A.  He  is  always  looking  exactly  in  the  direction  in  which  I  saw  him,  and  in 
precisely  the  same  attitude.  If  I  had  met  him  on  the  street  I  would  have 
known  him  at  once. 

Q.  Why,  then,  did  you  deem  it  necessary  to  go  to  his  cell  if  you  could 
have  recognized  him  so  readily  among  others  1 

A.  I  went  there  by  request. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  to  go? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  149 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  request  to  see  him  1 

A.  No,  sir.  They  tokl  me  I  had  better  go  there  and  see  whether  I  would 
recognize  him  ? 

Q.  What  did  you  say  ? 

A.  I  tokl  them  I  would  go. 

Q.  Did  you  kuow  Booth  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  known  him  ? 

A.  I  had  known  Booth  during  my  stay  here  in  Washington,  I  was  here  in 
Washington  nearly  the  whole  of  'G4. 

Q.  Were  you  on  social  terms  with  him  1 

A.  No,  sir.  I  had  seen  him  at  the  saloon.  I  was  on  social  terms  with  the 
bar-tender  of  that  saloon  below  the  theatre. 

Q.  In  your  dreams  of  Booth  have  you  ever  seen  him  in  any  other  position 
than  that  in  which  you  saw  him  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  one  who  attracted  my  attention  more  particularly  than  did 
Booth  was  the  villain] 

Q.  What  is  your  religious  faith  1 

A.  I  am  a  Protestant. 

Q.  Of  what  denomination  ? 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT.  I  must  object  to  that. 

^h:  Meruick.  I  will  waive  the  question.  I  thought  it  possible  that  he  was 
a  Swedenborgiau. 

Mr.  PiEUKEPONT.  We  don't  desire  to  bring  religion  into  this  case  in  any 
way. 

The  District  Attorxev.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  witness  disclosing  his 
religion,  but  we  object  upon  principle  to  introducing  any  religious  inquisition 
into  a  court  of  justice. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  have  no  purpose  to  introduce  religious  inquisition,  nor  to  fol- 
low your  example  in  any  particular. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  think  that  remark  is  entirely  without  founda- 
tion. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  hope  we  shall  avoid  all  such  controversies,  and  try  this 
solemn  case  in  a  solemn  way. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Well,  we  are  all  solemnized  now.     Let's  get  on. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  communication  with  spiritual  mediums  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  don't  believe  in  such  foolishness  as  that.  I  cannot  say  thac  I 
am  a  firm  believer  iu  dreams,  but  I  have  often  seen  things  in  my  dreams  that  I 
have  seen  before. 

Q.  Don't  you  often  in  your  dreams  have  things  presented  to  you  which  are 
to  happen,  and  then  have  those  things  happen? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have.  I  do  not  put  any  trust  in  dreams  of  events 
that  are  to  happen  ? 

Q.  But  have  you  not  seen  things  in  your  dreams  that  had  not  then  happened, 
but  which  did  afterwards  happen  ?  Have  you  not  been  iu  positions  in  your  life 
which  were  familiar  to  you  when  you  thought  of  the  past,  and  yet  iu  which  you 
had  never  really  been  before  ? 

A.  1  have  dreamed  I  was  married,  but  I  was  not  married.  I  was  afterwards, 
however. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  vision  of  the  bride  in  your  dreams  ? 

A.  Well,  I  saw  the  person  1  had  comnumication  with — that  is  all.  It  did 
happen  that  I  got  married. 

Q.  To  the  same  person  presented  befoi'e  you  in  your  dreams  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


150  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Then  there  are  some  of  your  dreams  which  tell  of  the  future  as  well  as 
the  past. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  never  put  confidence  in  them,  or  allow  them  to  bother  me. 

Q.  But  they  obtrude  themselves  upon  you  sometimes,  do  they  not? 

A.  Not  materially. 

Q.  But  they  do  to  some  extent  1 

A.  That  is  the  only  case. 

Q.  Don't  you  find  that  you  sometimes  have  a  dream  recalled  which  it  is  dif- 
ficult for  you  to  shake  off? 

A.  When  I  dream  of  falling  from  any  height,  or  anything  of  that  sort. 

Q.  I  mean  the  next  day  ? 

A.  I  simply  think  of  it  as  a  horrible  dream — that  is  all.  It  soon  goes  away  ; 
generally  after  breakfast. 

Q.  Did  you  say  you  were  examined  at  the  conspiracy  trials. 

A.   I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  state  there  that  you  knew  Booth  1 

A.  I  have  known  him  by  sight.  I  believe  I  stated  on  the  occasion  of  that 
trial  that  I  knew  him.  A  photogi-aph  was  handed  me,  and  I  told  them  that  was 
Booth. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  that  commission  that  the  man,  or  one  of  the  men,  you  saw 
conversing  there  that  night  was  J.  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  after  these  three  parties  lined  themselves 
opposite  the  space  the  President  was  to  pass,  the  man  whom  you  called  Surratt 
went  out  to  examine  the  carriage,  and  stumbled  over  your  foot  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  after  President  Lincoln  didn't  come  down. 

Q.  Did  you  state  on  your  examination  before  the  military  commission  that 
one  of  the  three  ])arties  had  been  standing  out,  looking  at  the  carriage,  on  the 
curbstone,  while  you  were  sitting  there,  and  then  went  back ;  that  they  watched 
awhile,  and  the  rush  came  down  ;  that  many  gentlemen  came  out  and  went  in 
and  had  a  drink  in  the  saloon  1  Then,  aftey  tliey  went  up,  the  best  dressed 
gentleman  stepped  into  the  saloon  himself;  remained  there  long  enough  to  get 
a  drink,  and  came  out  in  a  style  as  if  he  was  becoming  intoxicated  ?  Is  that 
your  testimony  1 

A.  That  is  my  testimony  ? 

Q.  Then,  in  this  testimony,  you  state  that  the  examination  of  the  carriage 
had  been  made  before  the  rush  came  down,  and  "  before  the  President  did  not 
come  down  as  they  seemed  to  expect."  In  your  testimony  now,  as  I  understand 
you,  you  say  that  it  was  "  after  he  did  not  come  down,  as  they  seemed  to  ex- 
pect," that  the  examination  of  the  carriage  was  made  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  rush  was  a  long  time  coming  down.  They  did  not  all  come 
down  at  once. 

Q.  Then  you  think  these  are  harmonious  statements  ? 

A.  Yes,  sif ;  that  is  correct.  I  have  thought  more  deeply  over  it,  and  have 
figured  it  oiit  since  the  best  I  could. 

Q.  This  testimony,  then,  before  the  military  commission  is  not  correct,  and 
what  you  now  state  is  correct  1 

A.  I  see  nothing  wrong  in  it. 

Q.  Then  why  do  you  say  you  have  thought  more  deeply  over  it  since  ? 

A.  I  have  not  changed  it  materially. 

Q.  Is  yoiir  mind  the  same  now  that  it  was  when  you  testified  down  at  the 
arsenal  ? 

A.  It  is  a  little  clearer  now. 

Q.  In  what  particular  is  it  a  little  clearer  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  151 

A.  In  the  transactions  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  'Allien  wherein  does  your  recollection  differ  now  from  what  your  recollec- 
tion was  at  the  time  of  that  trial,  with  regard  to  the  examination  of  the  carriage  ? 

A.  Not  any  at  all. 

Q.  Then  it  is  no  clearer  as  to  that  ? 

A.  It  is  a  little  clearer. 

Q.  Then,  if  it  is  a  little  clearer,  in  what  particular  is  it  a  little  clearer  1 

A.  There  are  little  incidents  that  I  did  not  think  of  before. 

Mr.  ]\Irurick.  I  am  not  calling  your  attention  to  any  little  incidents.  In 
your  examination  before  that  commission  yoiT  stated  that  a  man  had  been  stand- 
ing out  and  examining  the  carriage  before  the  time  when  they  expected  the  Presi- 
dent to  come  down.  You  now  state  that  the  man  went  out  to  examine  the  car- 
riage after  the  time  they  expected  the  President  to  come  down.    Which  is  correct  ? 

A.  It  was  all  about  the  same  time.  I  can  say  that  my  testimony  now,  and 
then,  is  just  the  same.  I  believe  he  was  out  there  just  immediately  as  they 
commenced  to  come  down.  I  know  he  was  there,  and  know  it  from  the  fact  of 
my  foot  being  in  his  way.     I  have  thought  deeply  over  this,  and  every  particular. 

Q.  How  large  a  man  was  J.  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  He  was  a  tall  man — -a  heavier  man,  a  great  deal,  than  Surratt. 

Q.  How  tall  was  he  ? 

A.  As  tall  as  I  am. 

Q.  How  tall  are  you  ? 

A.  About  five  feet  eleven ;  I  was  five  feet  ten  and  a  half  some  time  ago — 
guess  I  am  eleven  now. 

Q.  How  large  was  the  mean-looking  man ;  you  say  he  was  rather  low  in 
stature  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  just  such  a  man  as  Edward  Spangler. 

Q.  Without  the  moustache  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  as  confident  about  the  identity  of  Spangler,  as  you  are  about  the 
identity  of  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  the  shade  of  the  wall,  you  know,  kind  of  hid  Spangler.  HeM^as 
leaning  against  the  wall ;  the  light  did  not  strike  exactly  there. 

Q.  Did  you,  or  not,  testify  before  that  commission  to  this  effect:  That  after 
Booth  (the  Avell  dressed  man  as  you  call  him  in  this  report)  came  out  from  the 
saloon,  he  stepped  up  and  whispered  to  this  ruflSan,  (that  is,  the  miserablest  one 
of  the  three,)  and  then  went  into  the  passage  that  leads  to  the  stage  from  the 
street ;   then  the  smallest  one  stepped  up  and  called  the  time  1 

A.  That  was  my  testimony  then,  and  it  is  my  testimony  to-day. 

Q.  That  the  smallest  one  of  the  three  called  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  state  before  the  military  commission,  when  asked  to  describe  the 
third  party,  as  is  reported  here  :  "  He  was  better  dressed  than  any  I  see  here. 
He  had  on  one  of  the  fashionable  hats  they  wear  here  in  Washington,  with  round 
top  and  stiff  brim.  Q.  Can  you  describe  his  dress  as  to  color  and  appearance  i* 
A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot  describe  it.  Q.  How  was  the  well  dressed  man  as  to  size  ? 
A.  He  was  not  a  large  man — about  five  feet  six  inches  high."     Did  you  state  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  from  sitting  down.     That  is  what  I  judged  from. 

Q.  Do  you  now  state  that  the  man  that  called  the  time  was  five  feet  six  inches? 

A.  No,  sir ;  but  from  my  position,  sitting  down  on  the  curbstone,  I  should 
have  judged  him  to  be  five  feet  six  or  seven  inches.  I  paid  no  particular  atten- 
tion to  that,  so  as  to  be  able  to  judge  exactly  his  height. 

Q.  He  was  not  a  large  man  then,  but  is  a  large  man  now.  The  man  you  saw 
has  not  changed  so  much  as  that,  has  he? 

A.  I  call  a  man  a  large  man  if  he  be  only  five  feet  high,  if  he  is  heavily  built. 


152  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

Q.  But  tliis  was  an  inquiry  as  to  his  lieigLt,  and  you  answered  five  feet  six 
inches  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  what  I  thought ;  I  was  sitting  down ;  I  did  not  intend 
to  be  very  precise  in  describing  the  size  of  the  man.  What  I  meant  by  the 
smallest  man  was  the  slimmest  one. 

Q.  You  then  knew  that  Booth  was  5  feet  10|  or  11  inches  ;  and  you  then 
testified  that  the  smallest  man  of  the  three  called  the  time  ? 

A.  I  was  not  so  confident  of  Booth  being  5  feet  11  inches.  I  thought  he  was 
somewhere  about  my  own  size. 

Q.  When  you  said  this  man  was  the  smallest  man  of  the  three,  did  you  mean 
that  he  was  the  slimmest  man  of  the  three  ? 

A.  I  meant  he  was  the  lightest  man. 

Q.  Now,  I  will  ask  you  this  question  :  According  to  your  recollection  of  the 
appearance  of  those  men  there  that  night,  Avas  there  not  of  the  three  men  one  or 
two  who  were  over  5  feet  6  ? 

A.  Well,  I  am  a  better  judge  now  than  I  was  then. 

Q.  Why  so  ? 

A.  Because  I  have  measured  men  every  day. 

Q.  Has  that  been  your  business  I 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  so? 

A.  As  recruiting  sergeant ;  I  have  to  take  the  heights  of  the  men.  Then  I 
was  no  judge  at  all.  1  was  then  not  observing  the  height  of  the  men  particu- 
larly, but  what  they  did  and  said. 

Q.  lou  say  you  stated  to  the  military  commission  that  the  man  who  had  such 
a  villanous  look  was  the  shortest,  but  yet  the  heaviest  man  of  the  three  1 

A.  Xo,  sir  ;   I  said  that  at  the  provost  marshal's  office. 

Q.  Did  they  write  it  down  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  They  sent  me  up  to  the  Old  Capitol  prison  to  identify 
him.  I  pointed  out  Edward  Spangler  as  the  man.  He  was  among  others  who 
were  brought  up.     Sergeant  Cooper  was  present. 

Q.  Was  he  the  smallest  one  ? 

A.  He  was  the  largest  man,  although  the  shortest,  in  my  way  of  speaking. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  before  the  military  commission  as  follows  :  "  Q.  About 
how  high  do  you  think  the  man  dressed  in  slouched  clothes  was  ?  A.  He  was 
about  5  feet  8  oi-  9  inches  high  '  ? 

A.  I  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Then  did  you  not  testify  at  the  same  time  that  the  genteelly  dressed  man 
was  5  feet  6  inches  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  if  you  did  that,  was  not  the  man  with  the  slouch  hat  the  larger  of 
the  two  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  war^  larger  in  proportion.  1  mean  by  large,  a  man  who  is 
stout  and  heavy ;  not  that  he  is  the  tallest.  I  will  say  here  that  I  had  not  a 
good  judgment  of  the  man  against  the  wall ;  because  he  was  in  a  leaning  attitude. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Booth  was  taller  thau  the  man  who  called 
the  time  1 

A.  No,  not  particularly.  I  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  the  height  then ; 
but  now,  since  I  have  looked  at  it,  I  do  not  believe  there  is  much  difference  in 
the  height. 

Q.  Looked  at  what  ? 

A.  At  the  position  of  the  men ;  at  the  position  they  had  occupied. 

Q.  You  mean,  then,  since  you  have  looked  at  John  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  mean  since  I  have  been  iu  the  habit — since  it  has  become  my 
businesss  to  measure  the  height  of  men. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  153 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  the  military  commission  that  you  paid  no  particular  at 
tention  to  their  heights  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir ;   I  only  gave  what  I  supposed  to  be  their  heights. 

Q.  Can  you  account  to  this  jury  for  the  fact  that  when  you  were  called  upou 
to  speak  of  this  man  before  the  military  commission,  you  should  have  picked  out 
from  the  three  one,  and  said  the  smallest  one  called  the  time  ? 

A.  I  called  him  the  smallest  man  because  he  was  so  thin. 

Q.  Then  afterwards  you  stated  that  he  was  five  feet  six  ? 

A.  I  stated  that  was  my  judgment. 

Q.  You  say  now  that  Booth  was  five  feet  ten  and  a  half  or  eleven,  and  the 
other,  Spaugler,  five  feet  eight  ? 

A.  I  could  not  on  my  oath  say  how  tall  Spaugler  wa^,  because  he  was  lean- 
ing against  the  w.all  and  not  straightened  up. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  why.  when  3'ou  said  the  smallest  man  called  the  time,  you 
did  not  explain  to  the  commission  that  you  referred  only  to  heft  and  not  to 
height  ? 

A.  Because  it  was  not  necessary. 

Q.  Then  you  told  the  commmission  that  the  smallest  man  of  the  three  called 
the  time  :  that  he  was  five  feet  six  ;  the  other  five  feet  eight,  and  the  other,  again, 
five  feet  ten,  and  never  explained  that  you  did  not  mean  the  height  I 

A.  Xo,  sir  ;  with  regard  to  the  man  standing  against  the  wall  I  could  not  tell 
what  his  height  was,  but  I  judged  him  to  be  the  height  mentioned  there,  when 
straightened  up.  I  did  not  consider  my  judgment  then  as  to  height  worth  any- 
thing at  all ;  now,  however,  I  do. 

Q.  If  you  knew  John  Wilkes  Booth  at  the  time  of  the  trial  before  the  military 
commission,  why  did  you  not  tell  the  commission  that  it  was  Booth  whom  you 
saw  there  that  night  ? 

A.  They  gave  me  the  picture  in  order  to  have  me  satisfy  myself  before  them, 
that  that  Avas  the  man. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  tell  them  that  it  was  Booth  you  saw  talking  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  did. 

Q.  How  did  you  tell  them  ? 

A.  I  told  them  it  was  Booth  who  came  out  of  the  restaurant.  They  showed 
me  his  photograph,  and  I  told  them  that  was  the  man  to  whom  I  referred. 

Q.  Did  not  they  show  you  that  photograph  at  the  provost  marshal's  office 
before  going  down  to  the  military  commission? 

A,  They  did  not. 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  if  this  is  correct — 

"Q.  How  was  the  well-dressed  man  as  to  size  ? 

"A.  He  was  not  a  very  large  man — about  five  feet  six  inches  high." 

Did  you  testify  to  that  ? 

A.  1  did ;   but  I  had  no  reference  to  height. 

Q.  Then  why  did  you  say  "five  feet  six  inches  high?" 

A.  I  put  that  in  afterwards.  I  meant  that  he  was  not  a  very  large  man.  A 
man  forty-four  inches  across  the  breast  is  a  large  man,  in  my  opinion,  if  he  be 
only  five  feet  four  inches  in  height. 

Q.  AVhen  you  were  examined  before  the  military  commission  did  you  see 
there  present  the  same  man  who  had  examined  you  at  the  provost  marshal's 
office? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  to  ray  knowledge.  I  did  not  get  to  see  tbe  cross-examiaer 
at  all.  The  man  who  was  cross-examining  was  sitting  in  the  rear  of  me.  1  was 
not  allowed  to  face  him  at  all;  I  faced  the  major  generals.  The  questions  were 
asked  me  from  the  other  side. 

Q.  Did  you,  in  your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  give  any 
description  of  the  individual — the  third  party — whom  you  now  call  John  H. 
Surratt  ? 
11 


154  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H,    SURRATT. 

A.   I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  j^ay  then  anything-  about  the  light  shining  en  his  fiice  ? 

A.  I  cannot  now  recollect  whether  I  did  or  did  not  say  anything  about  the 
light. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  about  his  pale  face? 

A.  I  have  not  read  my  testimony  over  for  some  time. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  whether  you  have  read  your  testimony  or  not,  but  us  to 
what  you  testified  to. 

The  Court.  Mr.  Merrick,  do  you  propose  in  the  cross-examination  of  each 
of  these  witnesses  to  take  up  the  testimony  delivered  somewhere  else,  and  go 
through  it  seriatim,  and  inquire  why  they  did  not  say  this,  and  why  they  did 
not  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  No,  sir. 

The  Court.  If  there  is  anything  in  regard  to  which  you  wish  to  contradict 
the  witness,  the  proper  way  is  to  lay  the  foundation  by  asking  him  whether  he 
said  so  and  so.  That  is  the  i;sual  rule.  We  will  never  get  through  in  this 
way.     You  have  now  been  two  hours  examining  this  witness. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  think  it  was  very  profitably  spent,  your  honor,  although  it 
may  appear  rather  self-complimentary  to  say  so.  I  do  not  wish,  sir,  to  trans- 
gress any  rule,  but  to  keep  entirely  within  proper  limits. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  object  to  considerable  latitude,  but  the  cross-examina- 
tion ought  to  be  kept  within  bounds,  and  with  some  regard  to  the  general  rules 
of  evidence  on  the  subject. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  fifteen  minutes. 

afternoon  session. 
Cross-examination  of  Sergeant  Dye  continued  : 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  there  was  anything  else  that  excited  your  suspi- 
cions except  what  you  have  already  told  the  jury  ? 

A.    No,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  relation  of  incidents  did  your  suspicions  become  ex- 
cited ? 

A.  At  the  second  calling  of  time. 

Q.  It  was  then  you  undid  your  pistol  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  anything  remarkable  to  see  Booth  about  that  day  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  It  was  only  remarkable,  as  I  understand  you,  that  a  well  dressed  man 
should  have  been  conversing  with  so  villanous  a  looking  man  1 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  desire  that  you  will  describe  to  the  jury,  as  near  as  you  can,  the  location 
of  that  clock  ? 

A.  To  my  recollection,  just  as  you  went  into  the  theatre,  you  look  right  be- 
fore you  and  you  will  see  it.  To  my  mind  the  clock  was  right  in  front  of  you 
in  the  vestibule. 

Q.  Right  in  front  of  the  middle  door,  was  it  ? 

A.  That  is  my  recollection;  it  was  right  square  up  before  you  as  you  go  in. 

Q.  You  could  not  see  it  from  where  you  were  sitting  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  could  not  see  inside  the  door. 

Q.  You  were  sitting  on  the  edge  of  the  plank,  as  I  understand ;  was  the  car- 
riage above  or  below  you  ? 

A.  The  carriage  was  above  me — the  rear  part  of  it. 

Q.  Which  way  were  you  facing  as  you  sat  on  the  platform  ? 

A.  Facing  the  theatre. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT  155 

Q.  You  have  said  that  you  went  afterwards  to  take  some  oysters  ;  please  to 
tell  the  jury  what  was  the  nature  of  the  suspicion  you  had  ? 

A.  I  thought  there  was  something  wrong  going  on,  or  that  was  not  right. 
Q.  Of  what  nature  ? 

A.  I  thought  it  was  something  against  the  President,  but  I  could  not  say. 
The  excited  manner  of  the  man  calling  the  time  and  his  frequent  whispering 
there  was  what  attracted  my  attention. 

(Objection  by  district  attorney  that  the  suspicions  of  a  witness  are  not  admis- 
sible. Much  latitude  is  to  be  allowed  in  cross-examination,  but  counsel  for  the 
defence  have  transcended  the  discretion  allowed  even  upon  cross-examination. 

The  court  said  there  was  no  objection  to  a  witness  stating  as  a  part  of  the  res 
gesta,  that  certain  actions  of  other  parties  excited  suspicion  in  his  mind,  but  it 
■was  inadmissible  to  examine  him  as  to  the  nature  of  those  suspicions. 

Mr.  Bradley  admitted  that  the  question  would  be  inadmissible  on  an  examina- 
tion in  chief,  but  held  it  to  be  within  the  legitimate  limits  of  cross-examination. 
The  court  ruled  the  question  to  be  inadmissible. 
Exception  to  ruling  taken  by  counsel  for  defence.) 

Q.  You  went,  as  you  have  stated,  to  the  oyster-house ;   what  did  you  do  after 
you  went  there  ? 
A.  Ordered  oysters. 
Q.  AVhat  next  1 

A.  We  sat  down  to  eat  them.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  we  ate  all  of  them 
or  not ;  I  do  not  think  we  did.  A  man  came  rushing  in  and  said  the  President 
was  shot. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

A.  We  immediately  got  up  and  started  for  camp. 
Q.  Why  did  you  go  out  to  camp  1 

A.  We  went  out  to  camp  because  we  did  not  know  but  there  would  be  a  detail 
made  of  a  guard. 

Q.  Was  that  all  you  did  after  you  started  out  of  the  oyster-house  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  we  hurried  out   to  camp.     I  was  the  first  one  who  told  General 
Hall,  after  I  got  there,  that  the  President  had  been  shot. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  tell  this  lady  at  the  window  on  H  street  that  Booth  had 
shot  the  President  1 

A.  The  man  who  came  into  the  saloon  said  it  was  Booth.  It  confirmed  my 
suspicions  immediately,  and  I  so  spoke  to  Sergeant  Cooper,  that  I  was  right  in 
my  suspicions  in  front  of  the  theatre  of  their  actions. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  testified  to  that  before  in  any  of  your  examinations  ?  Have 
you  ever  .stated  this  affair  on  H  street  ? 

A.  I  have  not.     This  occurred  to  me  a  long  while  afterwards.    I  never  knew 
where  the  Surratt's  lived  until  Avithin  three  months. 
Q.  It  occurred  to  you  after  that  trial  ? 

A.  0,  yes ;  after  1  ascertained  they  lived  on  H  street,  I  asked  where  the 
house  was,  and  since  I  have  arrived  here  I  went  to  the  house,  and  the  house 
was  familiar  to  me. 

Q.  1  understand  you  to  say  that  the  lady  you  saw  then  resembled  the  one  you 
saw  at  the  conspiracy  trial  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  that  strike  you  when  3'ou  saw  her  at  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  it  did  not. 
Q.  When  did  it  first  strike  you? 
A.  Since  I  learned  of  the  house  on  H  street, 
Q.  Did  not  you  know  the  house  on  H  street  at  that  time  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;   I  never  knew  it  until  I  came  to  this  city  lately. 
Q.  Then  it  never  struck  you  that  the  lady  you  saw  at  the  conspiracy  tria 


156  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

resembled  llie  lady  yon  saw  on  H  street,  nntil   yon  learned  that  Mrs.  Snrratt's 
honse  was  on  H  street  ? 

A.  Not  until  I  learned  that  she  lived  there,  and  the  relation  of  the  house  to 
the  incidents  that  had  occurred. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  trial  was  that  1 

A.  Some  time  after.     Since  I  came  back  to  the  city. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  at  the  time  of  the  trial  that  Mr.«.  Snrratt's  house  was 
there  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  recalled  this  to  your  mind  ? 

A.  When  I  learned  that  her  house  was  on  H  street,  after  I  came  back  to 
Washington. 

Q.  Two  years  afterwards  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  remember  that  she  was  an  elderly  lady. 

Q.  Then  you  saAv  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  trial,  as  I  understand  you,  within  two  or 
three  weeks  of  the  occurrence  on  H  street,  and  it  never  struck  you  that  she  re- 
sembled the  lady  who  looked  out  of  the  window  that  night  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  when  the  question  was  raised  in  the  press  of  the  country 
that  Mrs.  Surratt  had  been  condemned  unjustly  that  all  this  came  into  my 
mind  about  her.  I  learned  that  she  lived  on  H  street,  and  1  remembered  the  per- 
son asking  what  was  going  on  down  town,  in  a  state  of  excitement,  although  no 
person  had  passed  that  way.  I  thought  it  was  a  person  who  knew  something 
was  coming  off  down  town  ;  that  is  it.  I  believe  it  in  my  own  mind,  too,  that 
she  knew  all  about  it,  and  was  waiting  with  a  dim  light  in  the  parlor. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPO.XT  : 

Q.  You  stated  in  your  cross-examination  that  your  judgment  two  years  ago 
about  men's  height  was  not  of  any  value,  but  that  it  is  now  of  considerable  value ; 
why  is  it  of  greater  value  now  than  it  was  two  years  ago  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  having  been  already  answered. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  thought  not,  directly. 

The  Court.  The  record  taken  by  the  stenographers  will  show  that  the  wit- 
ness was  asked  this  question,  and  he  answered  that  his  judgment  was  better  now 
than  then,  because  for  the  last  year  or  more  he  had  been  engaged  in  enlisting 
men;  that  it  was  his  business  to  take  the  height  of  every  man  he  enlisted,  and 
that  in  that  way  he  had  become  an  expert  or  judge  of  the  height  of  different 
persons. 

Mr.  PiERR£Po,\T.  I  am  quite  content  •with  that  statement.  I  will  ask  the 
witness  but  one  other  question. 

Q.  State  whether  you  have  ever  had  a  habit  of  considering  or  speaking  of 
men  5  feet  6  inches  high — men  weighing  130 — as  large  men  or  small  men. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  object  to  that  question. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  The  question  is  in  response  to  questions  they  have  asked 
the  witness  in  relation  to  large  men  and  small  men. 

The  Court.  And  he  has  answered  that  he  estimated  the  size  of  men  by  their 
heft  rather  than  by  their  height. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  That  is  all  I  desire  to  have  understood. 

By  a  Juror  : 

Q.  I  wish  to  ask  the  witness  whether  he  saw  the  entire  full  face  of  the  pris- 
oner from  the  ])osition  he  occupied  on  the  carriage  step  on  the  night  in  question? 
A.  I  saw  all  the  time  three-quarters  of  it,  and  a  part  of  the  time  the  whole 

it. 

By  another  Juror  : 
Q.  How  was  the  prisoner  dressed  on  the  night  of  the  assassination  1 
A.  His  coat  was  drab,  his  hat  was  something  like  this  hat  I  have  here,  but  no 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRA.TT  157 

exactly;   one  of  these  fashionable  roiiud-top,  stiflf-brimuied.    It  appeared,  to  my 
recollection,  to  have  been  black. 

Q.  How  as  to  the  pants  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Had  he  on  a  watch  chain  or  guard  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not  observe  any. 

Peter  Taltavul  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPONT  : 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  on  the  14th  of  April,  1SG5,  on  the  day  tlie  President 
was  murdered  ? 

A.  I  lived  on  Eighth  street  east,  at  the  Navy  Yard,  between  G  and  I,  south. 

Q.  Where  was  your  place  of  business  ? 

A.  On  Tenth  street. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  ? 

A.  I  kept  a  restaurant. 

Q.  Where  was  that? 

A.  Right  next  to  Ford's  theatre. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  restaurant  at  the  time  the  murder  was  committed  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  frequently  seen  him  there,  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  He  used  to  come  in  there  very  often. 

Q.  You  knew  him  well  by  sight '{ 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  come  in  that  evening  ? 

A.  He  came  in  that  night. 

Q.  What  did  he  do? 

A.  Pie  walked  up  to  the  bar  and  called  for  some  whiskey. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  gave  it  to  him. 

Q.  State  whether  he  was  alone. 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  he  drink  it  1 

A.  Y^'es,  sir. 

Q.  Then  what  did  he  do. 

A.  He  called  for  some  water.  I  did  not  give  him  any  water  when  he  called 
for  the  ^yhiskey.  It  is  usual  to  give  water,  but  I  did  not  give  it  to  him.  He 
called  for  water,  and  I  gave  it  to  him.  He  laid  the  money  on  the  counter  and 
went  right  out. 

Q.  State  how  he  appeared  as  to  coolness  or  nervousness. 

A.  I  did  not  see  anything  unusual  in  him  at  all. 

Q.  Nothing  unusual  in  his  dress  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  dressed  in  bis  usual  way — no  disguise  1 

A.  Xo,  sir;  no  disguise. 

Q.  How  many  minutes  after  he  took  that  drink  was  it  before  you  heard  the 
President  was  assassinated  ? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  come  at  it,  it  must  have  been  from  eight  to  ten  minutes. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  Booth  often  before  ? 

A.  I  used  to  see  him  almost  every  day. 

Q.  Who  had  you  seen  him  with  near  the  time  of  this  occiu-rence  ? 

A.  I  could  not  exactly  recollect.  He  used  to  come  in  with  several  gentlemen; 
sometimes  with  one,  and  sometimes  with  ai^other. 

Q.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  a  particular  time.  Did  you  see  him  with  any 
person  charged  as  one  of  the  conspirators  ? 


158  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  saw  him  two  or  three  clays  before  with  Herold. 

Q.  Where  was  that  ? 

A.  In  the  same  place ;  he  came  in  there. 

Q.  State  what  occurred. 

A.  I  could  not  exactly  say.  I  thiuk  they  just  came  in — came  to  the  bar  and 
got  a  drink ;  probably  had  a  little  conversation  together,  and  went  out  again. 
I  could  not  particularly  describe  what  passed  there  at  all,  not  taking  any  par- 
ticular notice. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  murder  did  you  see  this  same  Herold  come  in? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   1  did  not. 

Q.  On  that  night  or  the  night  previous  did  any  one  come  in  and  inquire  for 
Booth  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  that  was  in  the  afternoon.  In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day 
Herold  came  in  there  and  asked  if  I  had  seen  John.  I  asked  him  what  John. 
He  said  John  Wilkes  Booth.     I  told  him  I  had  not  seen  him. 

Q.  What,  then,  did  he  say;  did  he  ask  you  anything;  and  if  so,  what? 

A.  No,  he  simply  came  to  the  bar  and  inquired  if  John  had  been  there.  I 
asked  him  what  John,  and  he  said  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  whether  he  had  been  there  that  day  or  evening? 

A.  No,  sir;  he  just  shut  the  door  and  went  right  out. 

Q.  And  between  the  time  Herold  came  in  and  the  time  Booth  came  in,  jus 
before  the  assassination,  you  had  not  seen  either  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  was  it  that  Herold  came  in  ? 

A.  I  judge  it  must  have  been  about  4  o'clock,  as  near  as  I  can  possibly  think 

of  it. 

Q.  At  the  time  Booth  came  in  and  took  a  drink,  just  before  the  assassination, 
was  there  anything  in  his  dress  or  appearance  to  awaken  suspicion  in  your 
mind  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  take  notice  of  anything  unusual  at  all.  He  just  came 
in  there  and  asked  for  a  drink.  , 

David  C.  Reed  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  In  what  city  do  you  live  1 

A.  In  Washington  city. 

Q.  How  many  years  have  you  lived  here  ? 

A.  About  thirty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  by  sight  ?  (prisoner  made"  to  stand 

up.) 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  by  sight  ? 

A.  Since  quite  a  boy. 

Q.  Since  you  or  he  Avas  quite  a  boy  ? 

A.  Since  he  was  quite  a  boy. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  day  of  the  murder  of  the 
President  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  on  that  day  in  Washington  ? 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  1 

A.  I  saw  him  on  Pennsylvania  avenue  just  below  the  National  Hotel.  I 
was  standing  as  he  passed  just  in  front  of  where  Mr.  Steer  keeps  the  sewing- 
machine  store. 

Q.  Which  way  was  he  going  ? 

A.  From  towards  the  Capitol. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  159 

Q.  About  what  time  of  the  clay  of  the  14th  was  it? 

A.  It  was  about  half  past  two,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect — between  two  and 
half  past  two. 

Q.  Had  you  had  a  nodding  acquaintance  with  him  at  all? 

A.  I  had;  I  knew  him,  and  I  suppose  he  knew  me.  There  was  no  intimate 
acquaintance  at  ali.     I  recognized  him  when  I  met  him. 

Q.  As  he  passed  did  you  recognize  him,  or  he  you  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  leading.) 

Q.  As  he  passed,  state  what  occurred. 

A.  There  was  a  recognition;  whether  it  was  by  him  or  me  first,  I  am  unable 
to  say. 

Q.  State  whether  it  was  by  both. 

A.  I  could  not  state  positively  whether  I  nodded  first  or  he  did ;  we  both 
nodded. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  there  was  anything  about  his  dress  or  equipments 
on  that  occasion  which  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  what  it  was  ? 

A.  What  attracted  me  more  particularly  was  his  dress  rather  than  his  face. 
I  remarked  his  clothing  very  particularly. 

Q.  What  was  there  about  him  that  attracted  your  attention? 

A.  The  appearance  of  the  suit  he  wore — very  genteel ;  something  like  country 
manufactured  goods,  but  got  up  in  a  very  elegant  style,  the  coat,  vest  and  panta- 
loons. 

Q.  Was  there  any  reason  why  you  noticed  his  clothes?  If  so,  state  it  to  the 

A.  I  cannot  say  there  was  anything  particular,  except  his  appearance  so  re- 
markably genteel.     I  vms  rather  struck  with  his  appearance. 

Q.  State  whether  he  was  on  foot  or  on  horseback. 

A.  He  was  on  foot. 

Q.  What  was  there  on  his  feet  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  leading. 

Objection  overruled.) 

A.  I  suppose  he  had  boots  or  shoes.  As  he  passed  from  me  I  turned  and 
looked  at  his  feet.     He  had  on  a  new  pair  of  brass  spurs. 

Q.  Now  describe  these  spurs. 

A.  They  were  plain  common  brass  spurs ;  nothing  very  particular  about  them 
except  the  rowel. 

Q.  W^hat  .was  there  about  the  rowel  ? 

A.  The  rowel  was  very  large  and  very  blue ;  they  evidently  were  bran  new. 

Q.  What  was  upon  his  head  ? 

A.  He  had  on  a  felt  hat.  It  was  not  one  of  these  very  low-crowned  hats  ;  it 
had  a  rather  wide  brim,  a  sort  of  drab-color  felt  hat. 

Q.  State  whether  the  brim  was  a  stiff  or  a  limber  one. 

A.  It  was  a  stiff-biimmed  hat. 

Q.  Which  way  did  he  go  after  passing  you  ? 

A.  He  was  passing  up  the  avenue  towards  the  Metropolitan  Hotel  from  where 
I  was  standing. 

Q.  State  whether  his  gait  was  rapid  or  .slow  ? 

A.  It  was  not  very  rapid  ;  an  ordinary  pace  in  walking;  nothing  very  hasty. 

Cross-examined : 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  What  was  it  that  attracted  your  attention  about  his  dress ;  was  it  a  par- 
ticularly fine  dress  ? 

A.  It  was  a  singular  dress — one  that  I  had  never  seen  him  wear  before.     It 


160  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

was  very  geuteel  and  very  pretty.  I  noticed  him  coming  up  ;  I  stood  facing 
him  as  he  passed;  I  was  standing  on  an  elevated  position,  probably  eight  inches 
above  the  pavement. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  dressing  genteelly  or  not  ? 

A.  I  had  never  seen  him  dressed  in  a  suit  of  clothes  anything  like  that  before ; 
I  cannot  say  but  what  he  was  in  the  habit  of  dressing  genteelly. 

Q.  How  did  he  usually  dress  when  you  saw   him  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  could  describe  any  particular  dress.  Sometimes  I  have 
seen  him  in  rather  rough  costume  as  he  would  come  in  from  the  country  ;  at 
other  times  I  have  seen  him  dressed  as  genteely  as  anybody  that  walks  the 
street. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  in  the  habit  of  seeing  him  come  in  from  the 
country  ? 

A.  Fifteen  years,  as  nearly  as  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing ;   what  was  he  engaged  in  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  here  market  days,  I  suppose,  passing  and  repassing. 

Q.  Did  he  stand  in  market  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say ;    1  never  saw  him  standing  in  market. 

Q.  At  what  intervals  of  time  were  you  in  the  habit  of  seeing  him  during 
that  fifteen  years  ? 

A.  I  could  not  come  at  how  often  I  had  seen  him  in  that  fifteen  years  ;  it 
would  be  very  hard  for  me  to  say. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  last  before  you  saAv  him  on  the  14th  of  April  1 

A.  I  cannot  exactly  name  the  time — that  is,  give  the  date.  It  was  about  the 
time  of  the  opening  of  the  race-course  across  the  river  beyond  tlie  Eastern 
branch. 

Q.  You  saw  him  then  and  there?  ^ 

A.  I  saw  him  then  and  there.  • 

Q.  You  mean  the  first  opening  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  how  long  a  time  had  you  been  accustomed  to  see  him  coming  in  from 
the  country  ? 

A.  I  could  not  give  exact  dates;  I  have  seen  him  since  he  vras  quite  a  boy; 
I  have  seen  him  here  with  his  father. 

Q.  How  often  since  he  was  grown  1 

A.  That  I  could  not  say  positively,  as  to  the  number  of  times ;  there  was 
nothing  remarkable  about  it  by  which  I  could  fix  any  particular  number — ten, 
twenty,  fifty,  or  any  other  number. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  meet  with  him  anywhere  except  passing  1 

A.  I  have  met  him  at  the  livery  stable,  where  he  stood  talking. 

Q.  What  livery  stable  ? 

A.  Pumphrey's ;  they  used  to  put  up  there,  but  subsequently  changed  to  the 
brick  stable  across  the  way, 

Q.  When  was  that ;  how  long  before  this  event  ? 

A.  It  was  a  considerable  time  before  the  death  of  his  father. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  Avhen  his  father  died  ? 

A.  I  think  his  father  died  some  time  in  1S63 — somewhere  about  that  neigh- 
borhood. 

Q.  Four  years  ago  ? 

A.  I  think  he  has  been  dead  near  about  that  time. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  at  his  fivther's  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  ago  was  that  ? 

A.  In  1851. 

Q.  Sixteen  years  ago  ;  how  large  was  John  Surratt  at  that  time. 

A.  He  was  a  little  chunk  of  a  boy,  probably  so  high.     (Three  feet.) 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  161 

Q.  How  often  were  you  at  their  bouse  ? 

A.  I  was  there  on  three  occasions. 

Q.  Tn  what  year  ? 

A.  During  the  fall  of  1851. 

Q.  How  often  since  then  1 

A.  I  have  not  been  there  since. 

Q.  "Where  did  you  meet  him  at  any  time  between  then  and  the  fall  before 
the  death  of  Mv.  Lincoln  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  bim  in  the  city. 

Q.  AVherel 

A.  As  I  have  said,  at  the  livery  stable,  and  I  have  seen  him  on  the  street. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  at  the  livery  stable  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  say  positively  ;  whether  I  ever  entered  into  conversation 
with  him  more  than  merely  speaking. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  ever  to  have  said  that  he  had  been  in  your  room  since 
you  knew  him  1 

A.  I  said  I  thought  he  had,  but  I  was  mistaken. 

Q.  Have  you  not  said  you  have  seen  him  in  your  room  frequently  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  telling  any  citizen  of  your  acquaintance  that  the  place 
where  you  met  him  at  the  time  you  have  mentioned  on  the  14th  of  April  was 
further  up  the  avenue,  above  Gth  street  1 

A.  Xo,  sir;   I  never  said  so. 

Q.'Do  you  recollect  having  said  to  any  acquaintance  of  yours  what  his  age 
was  or  his  personal  appearance  1 

A.  I  described  his  personal  appearance. 

Q.  With  any  citizen,  in  conversation,  do  you  recollect  saying  that  he  was  a 
man  about  35  years  old  ? 

A.  From  30  to  35  years  old  I  supposed  he  might  be. 

Q.  You  say  your  attention  Avas  not  particularly  drawn  to  Surratt's  face  at 
that  time  ;   can  you  state  Avhether  he  had  any  beard  or  not  1 

A.  I  cannot  say  positively  whether  he  had,  or  not ;  if  he  had,  it  was  so 
slight  as  to  be  scarcely  perceivable. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  so  light  in  color  or  in  growth  ? 

A.  So  light  in  color  and  in  growth. 

Q.  So  that  if  he  had  a  beard  you  do  not  recollect  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  any  at  all. 

Q.  What  livery  stable  did  you  go  to  after  his  father's  death  ? 

A.  To  the  brick  stable  belonging  to  Marshall  Brown.  His  fother  changed 
from  Pumphrey's  to  that  before  his  death. 

Q.   Who  kept  that  stable  then  ? 

A,  Levi  I'nmphrey. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  the  stable  at  the  corner  of  6th  and  C  streets  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  at  the  corner  of  6th  and  C  streets. 

Q.  Where  did  young  Surratt  put  up  his  horse  after  his  lather's  death  ? 

A.  Whether  he  put  his  horse  there  or  not  I  am  not  sure.  I  have  seen  him 
at  the  stable,  but  I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  him  stop  there  on  horseback 
since  the  death  of  his  father. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  Surratt  the  elder  lived  when  you  visited  him  ? 

A.  Away  down  here  in  [Maryland. 

Q.  In  Avhat  is  called  Surrattsville? 

A.  It  was  not  called  Surrattsville  then  ;  it  was  called  John  Surratt's. 

Q.  What  was  there  at  the  place  called  John  Surratt's  1 

A.  He  kept  a  hotel  and  a  post  office. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  to  have  the  privilege  of  recalling  Mr.  Reed  for  cross- 


162  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  K.  SUKRATT. 

examination  at  some  future  time,  after  the  defence  should  have  consulted  with  a 
witness  now  out  of  the  city. 

Mr.  Carrington  objected  to  this  course,  as  being  without  precedent,  and  held 
that  there  was  no  rule  of  court  that  justified  such  a  course. 

Mr.  Bradley  argued  that  it  was  a  matter  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the 
court.  The  defence  expected  to  prove  that  Mr.  Reed  had  made  statements  out 
of  court  contradictory  to  what  had  been-  testified  to  in  court.  The  defence, 
however,  did  not  know  that  Mr.  Reed  was  to  be  called,  and  they  could  not  put 
the  question  in  form  until  the  absent  witness  referred  to  was  here. 

The  decision  of  the  question  was  reserved  until  to-morrow  morning. 

Su.«5AN  Ann  Jackson  (colored)  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  How  long  ago  were  you  married  ? 

A.  I  have  been  married  two  years  this  May. 

Q.  "What  was  your  name  before  marriage  ? 

A.  Susan  Ann  Mahoney. 

Q.  Were  you  married  before  or  after  the  assassination  of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  was  married  two  weeks  after  it. 

Q.  You  remember  that  event  do  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  •• 

Q.  Do  you  remember  where  you  were  living  iu  the  month  of  March,  or  the 
latter  part  of  March,  of  the  year  in  which  the  President  was  assassinated,  before 
you  were  married  1 

A.  I  was  living  at  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

Q.  On  what  street  was  Mrs.  Surratt's? 

A.  On  H  street,  between  6th  and  7th. 

Q.  And  as  you  go  up  that  way  east,  on  which  side  of  the  street  is  it? 

A.  On  the  right-hand  side. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  number  1 

A.  No,  sir,   I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  the  entrance  or  stoop  of  the  house,  how  that 
was  ? 

A.  There  were  high  steps  run  up  in  front. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  about  how  high,  whether  they  went  up  to  the  story  or 
not. 

A.  It  was  up  to  the  second  story,  pretty  near  the  windows. 

Q.  Then  it  was  very  high,  was  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wiiere  did  you  go  from  when  you  went  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  in  March — from 
whose  service  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Brown's. 

Q.  Where  did  Mrs.  Brown  live? 

A.  She  lived  on  the  island. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mrs.  Brown's  first  name,  or  her  husband's  name  1 

A.  No,  sir,   I  do  not.     I  did  not  stay  there  very  long. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  Good  Friday  in  the  April  following  the  March 
when  yovT  went  to  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  don't  remember  the  very  day  I  went  there . 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  Good  Friday  following  that  day,  or  any  circum- 
stances about  that  Good  Friday  in  April  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mrs.  Surratt  went  away  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes.  She  went  down  in  the  country  on  Good  Friday,  between  11  and  12 
o'clock. 

Q.  In  what  did  she  go  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  163 

A.  She  went  in  a  buggy. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  man  who  went  with  her  ? 

A.  Mr.  Weichman. 

Q,  Did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     He  boarded  there  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  You  woukl  know  him  now,  if  you  were  to  see  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Weichman  when  he  came  back  with  JMrs.  Suvratt 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  saw  him  when  he  came  back  with  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  evening  did  Mrs.  Surratt  return  ? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect,  it  was  between  8  and  9  o'clock. 

Q.  After  that,  on  that  evening,  will  you  tell  us  whether  you  saw  the  prisoner 
here  1 

"Witness.  That  one  sitting  over  there?  (pointing  to  the  prisoner.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.    Yes. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  seen  him  in  the  dining-room. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him  ? 

A.  His  mother  was  with  him. 

Q.  What  did  his  mother  say  to  you  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  him  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  never  seen  him  before. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  lived  in  the  house  ? 

A.  I  had  been  there  three  weeks. 

Q.  What  did  his  mother  say  ? 

A.  She  told  me  that  was  her  son. 

Q.  What  else  did  she  say  to  him,  or  about  him  ? 

A.  She  did  not  say  anything  else.  When  I  was  gathering  up  some  clothes  to 
put  in  the  wash,  I  asked  if  they  were  for  Mr.  Weichman,  and  she  said  no,  they 
were  for  her  son. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  about  who  he  looked  like  ? 

A.  She  asked  me  did  he  not  look  like  his  sister  Annie. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  that  ? 

A.  I  said  I  did  not  know ;  I  did  not  take  good  notice  of  him  to  see  who  he 
favored. 

Q.  Who  was  it  that  asked  you  if  he  did  not  look  like  his  sister  Annie  ? 

A.  ]\[rs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  you  bring  anything  into  the  room  you  have  spoken  of  where  she  was 
sitting  with  her  son  ? 

A.  I  had  just  brought  a  pot  of  tea  into  the  room. 

Q.  Who  Avas  in  the  room  when  you  brought  in  the  pot  of  tea  ? 

A.  Not  any  one,  except  her  son. 

Q.  Do  you  see  any  one  now  who  she  told  you  then  was  her  son  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  am  looking  at  him  now. 

Q.  State  whether  that  is  the  one. 

(The  prisoner  made  to  stand  up.) 

A.  That  is  the  man,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  took  in  the  pot  of  tea,  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  Just  went  out  again. 

Q.  Did  you  return  again  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir ;  I  did  not  return  in  the  room  any  more. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us,  as  near  as  you  can,  about  what  time  in  the  evening  you 
took  in  the  pot  of  tea? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  come  at  it,  she  came  home  between  8  and  9  o'clock. 
Well,  when  she  came  home  and  came  to  the  dining-room,  I  carried  in  supper  for 


164  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT. 

Mr.  Weicbman,  the  man  who  boarded  there.     After  he  Aveut  out  she  called  me 
and  asked  me  for  a  second  plate,  cup,  and  saucer.     I  carried  them  to  her. 

Q.  And  then  you  found  this  man  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  his  sister  Annie  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  she  lived  there. 

Q.  She  was  in  the  house? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examined  : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  "Were  you  ever  examined  as  a  witness  about  this  matter  before  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Orrut  examined  me — or  Captain  Orfutt.     I  am  not  sure 
about  the  name. 

Q,  Where  were  you  examined  ? 

A.  He  carried  me  down  to  his  office — I  forget  where  it  was — in  the  night. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  Monday  night  after  the  assassination  happened. 

Q.  They  took  you  down  to  a  guard-house,  or  some  place? 

A.  They  took  me  to  the  office. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  it  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  had  never  been  there  before.     I  do  not  recollect  where  it  was. 
I  think  it  was  somewhere  near  the  Treasury. 

Q.  Who  took  you  there — do  you  remember  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir  ;  I  went  in  a  hack. 

Q.  You  were  examined  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  wi-ite  down  your  examination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  examined  afterwards  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  then,  I  was  not. 

Q.  Were  you  at  any  tiirse  after  this  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  since  then  I  have  been  down  to  what  they  call  the  War  De- 
partment ;    in  the  course  of  last  week,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  It  was  just  last  week  I  was  cariied  down  to  the  War  Department.     Mr. 
Kelly  carried  me. 

Q.  And  yon  were  examined  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  who  examined  you  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  the  gentleman's  name. 

Q.  Was  what  you  stated  then  written  down  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  written  down. 

Q.  When  you  were  examined  before  General  Augur,  if  that  was  the  place, 
did  you  then  make  the  same  statement  you  do  now  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  stated  that  Mrs.  Surratt's  sou  was  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  became  of  him  ? 

A,  I  do  not  know,  indeed  ;    I  did  not  see  any  more  of  him. 

Q.  You  saw  him  about  0,  or  half  past  9  ? 

A.  It  was  between  S  and  9  M'hen  she  came — after  Mr.  Weicbman   and  she  ■ 
took  tea,  she  called  me  to  bring  a  pot  of  tea  to  this  gentleman. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Weicbman  in  there  also  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  not  any  one  there  at  all ;  he  was  gone  out. 

Q.  Did  he  come  into  the  same  room? 


TRIAL    OF   JOIIX    11.    SURRATT.  165 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  was  not  in  there  with  Mr.  AVeiehmau. 
Q.  Who  came  in  from  the  country  with  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 
A.  Mr.  Wcichman. 
Q.  Where  did  he  go  then  ? 

A.  I  suppose  he  went  up  stairs  to  beA  or  somewhere. 
Q.  Where  was  this  gentleman  then  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know. 
Q.  You  had  seen  him  before  that  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  never  seen  him  until  that  night. 

Q.  And  when  you  went  into  the  parlor  you  found  him  sitting  in  the  dining- 
room,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  told  you  it  was  her  son  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  very  same  gentleman  ? 

A.  Y^'es,  sir  ;  this  is  the  very  same  gentleman  who  vras  in  there  with  Mrs. 
Surratt. 

Q.  And  that  you  told  to  these  gentlemen  and  they  wrote  it  down  the  Monday 
afterwards  ? 
A.  Y"es,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  never  saw  him  before  then,  or  since  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  never  before  nor  since,  until  one  day  last  week  when  he  was 
brought  up  here. 

Q.  And  you  are  sure  he  is  the  very  same  man  ? 
A.  He  is  the  very  same  man  she  told  me  was  her  son. 
Q.  And  the  very  same  man  you  saw  at  her  house  ? 

A.  The  very  same  man  I  saw  the  night  after  she  came  in  from  the  country. 
Q.  The  night  of  the  assassination  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  same  night. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  been  living  there  three  weeks  ;  was  it  just  three  weeks  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  three  weeks  on  Monday. 

Q.  Now  if  you  can  go  back  a  little,  are  you  quite  sure  the  gentleman  you  saw 
there,  who  she  told  you  was  her  son,  was  not  there  on  Monday,  ten  days  before 
the  assassination  of  the  President  1 

A.  I  never  saw  that  gentleman  she  called  her  son  until  Friday  night. 
Q.  You  are  sure  it  was  Friday  night  1 

A.  Y'es,  sir ;  it  was  the  Friday  night  she  came  from  the  country. 
Q.  And  that  was  the  night  the  President  was  assassinated  ? 
A.  Y'es,  sir ;  it  was  the  very  night   she  came  from  the  country ;    it  was  the 
Friday  night  before  Easter  Saturday. 

Q.  Do  you  not  recollect  the  night  the  President  was  assassinated  ? 
A.  It  was  Friday  night. 

Q.  Was  that  the  same  night  you  saw  this  gentleman  there  ? 
A.  It  was  the  very  night  I  saw  this  gentleman  there. 

Q.  You  must  have  been  there  the  night  of  the  3d  April,  the  Monday  night  of 
the  week  before  the  President  was  assassinated  ? 
A.  I  was  there  a  week  in  3Iarch. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  liim  there  on  that  Monday  night  the  week  before  the 
I'resident  was  asassinated  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  as  I  know  of,  I  did  not  see  him  there  the  week  before;  I  saw 
him  on  Friday  night. 

By  Ml-.  PiKRREPONT  : 

Q.  Y'ou  stated  that  you  went  into  the  dining-room,  and  that  when  you  were 
in  there  Mrs.  Surratt  told  you  the  person  there  was  her  son ;  did  you  go  there 
of  your  own  accord,  or  did  she  call  you  in  ? 

A.  She  called  me  in  to  bring  a  clean  plate  and  cup ;  yes,  sir. 


166  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

James  Sangster  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

If  your  honor  please, in  consequence  of  this  witness  being  out  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  United  States,  we  are  obliged  to  go  a  little  out  of  our  order  so  that 
he  may  return  ;   I  will  therefore  examine  him  now. 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  Montreal,  Canada. 
Q.  Where  did  you  reside  in  April,  1865  1 
A.  Montreal. 

Q.  What  was  then  and  now  your  position  ? 
A.  Book-keeper  at  St.  Lawrence  Hall. 

Q.  Will  you  take  this  book  and  state  to  the  court  and  jury  what  it  is  ? 
A.  That  is  an  arrival  book. 
Q,  Take  these  and  state  what  they  are. 

A.  One  contains  a  copy  of  the  bills  rendered,  and  the  other  is  a  leaf  from  our 
departure  book,  in  which  is  written  the  number  of  the  room  the  parties  occupied, 
when  they  go  away,  or  by  what  train  or  boat. 
Q.  Explain  what  you  mean  by  arrival  book. 

A.  Parties  come  there  and  register  their  names  before  procuring  rooms. 
Q.  Will  you  state  how  you  know  when  a  party  leaves  your  house,  what  train 
he  will  take,  and  in  what  direction? 

A.  The  entry  is  made  in  this  departure  book  of  the  train  or  boat  of  the  party 
going  away. 

Q.  Now  turn  to  this  arrival  book,  or  register,  as  we  are  accustomed  to  call  it, 
and  will  call  it,  to  April  G,  1SG5,  and  state  whether  you  see  there  the  name  of 
John  Harrison  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  now  show  the  book  to  the  court  and  then  the  jury,  (entry  pointed 
out  by  witness  to  court  and  jury.)     Now  turn  to  the  next  arrival  Avith  the  same 
name  and  tell  us  what  day  of  April  it  is  under  ? 
A.  The  ISth. 

Q.  Now  can  yo\i  tell  us  whether  the  last  is  the  same  handwriting  as  the  first? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  from  that  register  at  what  time  in   the  day  that  arrival 
was  ? 

A.  12.30  noon. 

Q.  What  was  the  time  of  the  first  arrival  ? 
A.  10.30  a.  m. 

Q.  Will  you  now  show  these  names  to  the  jury  ?  (Register  exhibited  to  jury 
and  entries  pointed  out.)    Now  will  you  tell  the  court  and  jury,  after  the  arrival 
on  the  6th,  Avhen  was  the  departure  of  the  man  who  entered  his  name  as  John 
Harrison ;   tell  us  when  he  paid  his  bill,  when  he  departed,  and  by  what  train  ? 
A.  He  paid  his  bill  on  tbe  10th,  but  did  not  go  away. 
Q.  When  did  he  go  away  ? 
A.  He  went  away  on  the  12th. 

Q.  How  do  you  kuoAv  he  did  not  go  away  on  the   10th  ? 
A.  It  is  written  opposite  the  number  of  the  room,  "  Not  gone." 
Q.  How  do  you  know  he  went  away  on  the  12th  ? 
A.  His  bill  was  paid  on  the  12th  for  two  days. 
Q.  Turn  and  see  if  there  is  anything  there  that  proves  that. 
A.  The  name  is  entered  in  this  bill  book,  with  the  amount  paid  on  the  10th, 
four  days  ;   then  it  is  on  this  departure  book  that  he  staid  two  days,  and  went 
away  on  the  12th. 

Q.  Which  way  did  he  go  ? 
A.  On  the  New  York  train. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  167 

Q.  At  what  time  did  the  train  leave  1 

A.  The  train  left  at  3  o'clock  ;  leaving  the  house  at  2A5. 

Q.  That  was  what  day  ? 

A.  The  12th  ;  lie  left  the  house  at  2.45. 

Q.  Now  turn  to  the  ISth,  when  he  arrived  again,  and  tell  us  how  many  hours 
or  minutes  he  staid  on  the  18th. 

A.  He  did  not  stay  any  time  in  the  hotel ;  I  do  not  know  how  long  ;  he  just 
came  into  the  house. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  place;  he  went  somewhere  and  was  secreted  in 
the  city,  I  believe. 

Q.  He  left  the  hotel  instantly,  did  he  ? 

A.  He  left  it  instantly. 

Cross-examined  : 

By  Mr.  Braulev,  jr. : 

Q.  You  say  he  left  the  hotel  instantly  on  the  ISth.  What  is  the  entry  on  the 
ISth  ? 

A.  There  is  no  entry  excepting  the  name  on  the  register. 

Q.  He  may  have  been  there  or  somewhere  else  ? 

A.  He  may  have  been  ;   he  paid  no  bill. 

Q.  And  had  no  room  assigned  him? 

A.  Yes  ;  he  had  a  room  assigned  to  him. 

Q.  And  he  may  have  been  there  Avithout  your  knowing  it  ? 

A.  He  may  possibly  have  been  there. 

Q.  Do  you  identify  this  gentleman  at  the  hotel  as  the  prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  cannot  say  that  I  identify  him. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  before  you  came  here  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that. 

Q.  Are  there  any  circumstances  that  would  recall  this  man  to  you  ? 

A.  The  circumstances  were,  that  after  the  death  of  Lincoln  parties  came  there 
inquiring  for  him.  and  from  the  description  they  gave  of  his  dress  1  remembered 
such  a  party  there  answering  to  that  description. 

Q.  What  was  this  dress  ? 

A.  He  wore  Avhat  is  called  a  Garibaldi  jacket. 

Bv  the  Coi'RT  : 

Q.  What  is  a  Garibaldi  jacket  ? 

A.  It  is  a  kind  of  straight  coat,  or  jacket,  with  a  belt  of  the  same  material. 

By  Mr.  Bradley,  jr. : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  else  peculiar  about  his  dress  ? 

A.  I  remember  that  he  was  tall — nothing  more  than  that.  At  the  time  of 
these  inquiries  I  remembered  that  such  a  party  had  been  in  the  house.  I  do 
not  remember  now  his  appearance  except  that  he  wore  a  Garibaldi  jacket. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  he  carried  a  cane  or  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  Or  the  style  of  his  hat  ? 

A.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  a  slouch  hat — a  kind  of  soft  hat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  pants  he  wore  ? 

A.  No,  I  cannot  describe  them.      The  coat  was  close-fitting,  buttoning  up  in 
front,  with  pockets  in  the  sides. 
By  a  Juror : 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  color  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  color.  It  was  a  style  of  coat  not  much  worn  there 
at  the  time,  and  attracted  my  attention. 


168  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT 

Q.  "Was  the  bat  hard  or  soft  1 

A.  My  impressiou  is,  it  was  a  soft  hat. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  You  saw  the  prisoner  standing  up  just  now.  What  do  you  gay  as  to  height 
compared  with  this  man  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  much  about  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  description  was  given  of  this  John  Harrison  by 
the  parties  who  came  to  inquire  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  exactly  what  the  description  was.  I  remember  they 
gave  such  a  description  that  I  knew  the  party  had  been  in  the  house ;  what  it 
was  I  do  not  recollect. 

Mr.  PlERKEPONT.  I  am  informed  by  counsel  upon  the  other  side  that  they 
are  going  to  bring  in  a  dress  they  claim  to  coi'respond  to  that  of  this  John  Har- 
rison ;  1  will  not,  therefore,  ask  any  further  question  at  present. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  say  that  we  had  sent  a  subpoena  for  Mr.  Sangsterfor 
the  purpose  of  proving  these  facts.  I  state  it  in  order  to  ascertain  how  far  it 
may  be  taken  as  a  stipulation  that  the  prisoner,  John  H.  Surratt,  on  the  6tli  of 
April,  1865,  arrived  at  that  hotel,  and  entered  his  name  on  the  register  as  John 
Harrison  ;  that  he  left  there  on  the  12th  of  April,  returned  on  the  ISth,  and 
again  registered  his  name  as  John  Harrison. 

jNfr.  PiERREPO.N'T.  And  that  these  two  entries  are  in  his  handwriting. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  That  he  registered  that  identical  name.  We  wish  to  exhibit  to 
Mr.  Sangster  not  the  dress  worn  by  the  prisoner,  but  a  dress  of  the  same  kind. 

Mr.  Pierrepo.\t.  That  will  certainly  save  us  the  necessity  of  taking  a  very 
considerable  amount  of  evidence. 

The  dress  referred  to  was  here  brought  into  court,  and  the  question  asked 
by  Mr.  Bradley,  jr.,  "  Is  that  the  style  of  garment  worn  by  the  person  entering 
his  name  as  John  Harrison  on  the  occasion  referred  to  ?"  Ans.  "That  is  the 
style  of  garment." 

The  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  10  a.  m. 

Wednesday,  June  19,  18fi7. 
The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

The  court  said  that  on  Monday  a  request  had  been  made  by  the  counsel 
for  the  defence  to  have  the  court  direct  the  prosecuting  attorneys  to  furnish 
them  with  a  list  of  the  witnesses  who  were  to  be  examined  on  the  part  of  the 
government.  He  had  carefully  considered  the  subject,  and  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  had  no  power  to  make  such  an  order,  and  that  such  an  order 
would  look  like  an  infringement  on  the  rights  of  the  prosecution  in  thus  com- 
pelling them  to  make  known  and  lay  open  their  case.  There  were  various  rea- 
sons why  the  order  should  not  be  made.  It  would  gratify  him  to  accommodate 
the  counsel  in  this  respect,  if  he  could  do  so  consistently  with  his  view  of  the 
law. 

In  regard  to  the  subject  proposed  yesterday,  relative  to  the  defence  being 
allowed  the  privilege  of  retaining  witnesses  and  cross-examining  them  at  any 
time  during  the  trial,  he  would  say  that  he  had  never  known  that  course  of 
practice  to  be  allowed,  and  could  not  see  any  good  ground  for  permitting  it  in 
this  case.  The  same  principle  should  apply  in  this  case  as  in  all  others,  which 
was  that  the  cross-examination  be  restricted  to  the  subject-matter  brought  out 
on  the  examination  in  chief.  He  then  read  the  rule  as  set  forth  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  to  the  effect  that  the  defence  had  no  right  to  cross-examine  except  as  to 
matters  brought  out  on  the  examination  in  chief. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  they  were  advertised  of  a  list  of  seventy  witnesses  which 
the  prosecution  had,  but  they  knew  nothing  as  to  Avhat  these  witnesses  would 
testify  to,  and  could  not  therefore  contradict  them,  and  they  had  accordingly 
asked  that  the  cross-examination  of  each  witness  be  postponed. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRA.TT.  169 

Carrol  Hobart,  conductor,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  is  your  present  occupation  ? 

A.  1  am  running  the  train  on  the  line  of  the  Vermont  Central  railroad. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  from  what  point  to  what  point  that  train  run?  ? 

A.  I  run-  it  from  Wliite  River  Junction  to  St.  Albans.  The  train  runs  to 
Montreal. 

Q.  Where  is  this  White  River  Junction  ? 

A.  It  is  on  the  line  of  the  Vermont  Central  railroad,  at  the  terminus  of  the 
Northern  New  Hampshire  railroad.  It  is  on  a  direct  route  from  Boston  to 
Montreal. 

Q.  State  how  far  this  is  from  Burlington. 

A.  One  hundred  and  three  miles. 

Q.  Does  the  road  from  Burlington  unite  with  this  road  of  yours  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  the  Vermont  Central  and  the  Vermont  and  Canada  prop- 
erly. We  run  out  of  the  Vermont  and  Canada  road  at  Essex  Junction.  The 
Vermont  and  Canada  starts  from  Essex  Junction,  and  runs  to  Rouse's  Point. 
The  Vermont  Central  and  the  Vermont  and  Canada  is  a  consolidated  concern. 

Q.  In  starting  trom  Burlington,  Vermont,  the  road  goes  to  R  )use's  Point  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  go  twenty-four  miles  over  the  Vermont  and  Canada  road  to 
go  to  St.  Albans.  I  remain  there  one  day,  and  the  next  morning  I  start  and 
go  twenty-four  miles  to  Rouse's  Point.  That  night  I  return  and  go  back  to 
White  River  Junction,  the  whole  length  of  the  route. 

Q.  So  that,  then,  the  Burlington  train  comes  up  and  meets  your  train  ? 

A.  Y'es,  sir ;  that  comes  up  to  Essex  Junction,  and  the  passengers  from  that 
train  get  on  to  mine.     I  stay  that  day  and  that  night  at  St.  Albans. 

Q.  Do  you  take  the  Burlington  passengers  at  Essex  Junction  .' 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  From  there  you  take  them  to  St.  Albans  ? 

A,  Y'es,  gir. 

Q.  At  what  time  do  you  get  to  St.  Albans,  if  you  run  regularly  1 

A.  I  was  due  there  at  G  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Between  the  10th  day  of  April,  1SG5,  and  the  20th  day  of  April.  1865, 
state  whether  you  were  the  conductor  on  this  same  road  ? 

A.  I  was,  and  have  continued  to  be  ever  since. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  what  time  in  April,  1SG5,  the  first  boat  came  up 
the  lake,  that  left  passengers  at  Burlington  1 

A.  I  got  the  passengers  from  the  first  trip  up  the  lake  by  the  boat  on  Tues- 
day morning,  in  April. 

Q.  Have  you  any  memorandum  of  what  kind  of  a  night  it  was  prior  to  this 
morning  that  you  took  these  passengers ;  I  mean  as  to  whether  it  was  stormy 
or  otherwise '? 

A.  1  think  it  was  a  clear  night,  but  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  morning  or  night  was  it  that  your  train  started? 

A.  I  started  from  White  River  Junction  at  11.55  at  night;  I  cannot  say 
whether  we  were  then  on  time  or  not,  but  that  was  the  time  of  starting. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Directly  to  St.  Albans.  ,.;.• 

(The  prisoner  was  here  i-equested  to  stand  up,  that  the  witness  might  see  him. 
lie  did  so.) 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  what  occurred  on  the  train  that  night  that  was 
peculiar  1 

A.  I  arrived  at  E^^sex  .Junction  at  5  o'clock  in  the  morning — Tuesday  morn- 
ing.    I  left  Essex  Junction  with  the  passengers  from  Burlington  and  the  boat 

12 


170  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

ou  Lake  Champlain.  As  I  went  through  the  train,  I  found  between  the  passen- 
ger car  and  the  sleeping  car  two  men  standing  on  the  platform  ;  they  were  on 
the  platform  of  the  passenger  car,  one  on  each  side  of  the  door.  I  spoke  to 
these  men,  and  asked  them  for  their  tickets.  They  said  they  had  none,  and 
that  they  had  no  money  ;  that  they  had  been  unfortunate. 

Q.  Please  describe  these  men  ? 

A.  One  of  them  was  tall ;  he  was  about  my  height  as  he  stood  up  in  the  car ; 
be  was  rather  slim  ;  had  ou  a  scull  cap — one  of  these  close-fitting  caps — and 
short  coat.  His  vest  was  opened  down  low,  and  his  scarf  came  over  under  his 
collar  and  stuck  in  his  vest.  The  other  man  was  a  short,  thick-set  man,  of 
sandy  complexion,  with  whiskers  around  his  face,  and  had  a  slouched  hat  ou. 

Q.  Of  what  color  were  his  whiskers  1 

A.  Sandy,  I  think. 

Q.  Was  he  a  rrugh  or  genteel  lookiug  man  1 

A.  He  was  a  rough-looking  man. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  1 

A.  I  cannot  state  about  his  dress. 

Q.  With  whom  was  the  conversation  1 

A.  "With  the  tall  man. 

Q.   State  what  the  conversation  was  ? 

A.  I  told  him  to  come  into  the  car,  and  put  my  hand  on  his  shoulder.  He 
came  in.  He  said  that  three  of  them  had  been  to  New  York  ;  they  were  Ca- 
nadians, but  had  been  at  work  in  New  York  ;  that  they  had  received  some 
money  two  nights  before — I  won't  be  positive  about  the  time — and  that  a  third 
party  who  had  been  with  ihem  got  up  in  the  night,  took  all  the  money  they 
had,  and  left ;  that  he  had  left  them  without  anything — in  a  destitute  condition. 

Q.  What  were  they  trying  to  do,  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  they  must  go  to  Canada ;  that  they  wanted  to  get  home  ;  that 
their  friends  lived  in  Canada,  and  that  when  they  got  home  they  wotdd  get 
plenty  of  money,  and  would  remit  the  amount  of  fare  to  me. 

Q.  What  further? 

A.  1  told  them  that  I  could  not  carry  them.  I  spoke  to  them  of  the  necessity 
of  having  money  if  they  were  going  to  travel,  and  that  I  could  not  carry  them 
through  free.  They  expressed  themselves  as  very  anxious  to  get  through.  I 
told  them  that  1  should  leave  them  at  the  next  station — Milton — between  Essex 
Junction  and  St.  Albans.  I  was  busy  when  I  got  there  with  the  train,  and  so 
forgot  them.  I  went  through  the  train  again  after  leaving  Milton,  and  found 
them  in  the  rear  end  of  the  car.  I  tried  them  again  to  see  if  they  had  not  some 
money.  They  said  they  had  none,  but  that  they  must  go  to  St.  Albans ;  that 
when  they  got  there  they  could  foot  it.  They  inquired  of  me  how  far  it  was  to 
Franklin  ;  that  they  were  going  through  the  country.  I  asked  them  how  they 
were  going  to  get  there  ?     They  said  they  were  going  afoot. 

Q.  State  where  Franklin  is  ? 

A.  Franklin  lies  northwest  of  St.  Albans  fourteen  miles  ;  I  think  the  distance 
is  about  four  miles  from  the  line — the  Canada  line. 

Q.  When  you  asked  them  how  they  were  going  to  get  to  Franklin,  what  did 
they  say  ? 

A.  They  said  that  they  would  have  to  go  afoot ;  that  they  had  no  money  to 
pay  their  fare  ou  the  stage ;  that  if  I  would  carry  them  to  St.  Albans  they 
would  try  and  get  home,  or  where  their  friends  were. 

Q.  AVho  did  this  talking  ] 

A.  The  tall  man. 

Q.  In  the  progress  of  this  talk,  or  in  the  beginning  of  it,  state  what  there 
was,  if  anything,  peculiar  about  their  dialect. 

A.  This  tall  man  tried  to  use  broken  English,  as  if  he  were  a  Canuck,  but 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  171 

occasionally  lie  would  get  a  little  in  earnest  for  fear  he  was  to  be  put  off,  and 
then  he  would  drop  the  Canuck  and  speak  good  square  English. 

Q.  What  did  you  discover  as  to  his  square  English  finally] 

A.  That  was  what  aroused  my  suspicions  that  things  were  not  all  right;  that 
they  were  travelling  incog.,  and  I  urged  the  matter  more  than  I  would  if  they 
had  been  really  poor  people  and  I  had  had  strong  proof  of  that  fact. 

Q,  Did  anything  happen  in  relation  to  the  position  of  the  tall  man's  hands 
at  all  ?     If  so,  what  ? 

A.  His  hands  were  not  like  those  of  a  laboring  man  ;  were  not  like  those  of  a 
Canadian  who  had  been  used  to  hard  labor.     They  were  white  and  delicate. 

Q.  You  took  them  to  St.  Albans  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  they  got  to  St.  Albans  what  did  they  do  1 

A.  They  went  out  into  the  yard,  on  to  Lake  street.  I  went  into  the  general 
ticket  office  to  attend  to  my  business. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  any  more  that  day  ? 

A.  I  will  not  be  positive.     I  cannot  say  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  If  you  did,  it  was  soon  after,  I  suppose? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  after  I  had  done  my  work — about  ten  minutes,  perhaps. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  us  the  time  the  train  went  on  from  St.  Albans  to  xMoutreal 
after  you  got  there  ?  or  what  time  it  would  be  due  in  Montreal  ? 

A.  Due  there  at  9.45  a.  m. 

Q.  That  same  morning  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  At  Montreal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  anybody  in  court  to-day  that  looks  like  the  tall  man  that 
you  saw  1 

A.  The  man  that  stood  up  before  me  resembles  the  man  that  I  saw  very 
much.  I  should  not  recognize  his  face.  He  had  at  that  time  a  moustache,  with 
no  whiskers  on  his  chin.     He  had  a  cap  on. 

Q.  How  did  he  wear  his  skull  cap  ? 

A.  It  was  drawn  down  over  his  forehead,  in  the  usual  way. 

Q.  Anything  on  one  side  at  all  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  noticed. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  soon  after  that  about  a  handkerchief  at  St. 
Albans  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  hardly  admissible. 

Mr.  PiERRRPONT.  I  mean  a  handkerchief  with  Surratt's  mark  on  it — the 
name  of  "J.  H.  Surratt." 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  doesn't  make  any  difference. 

The  Court.  Not  anything  that  he  heard.  If  he  saw  anything  of  the  hand- 
kerchief it  would  be  proper  for  him  to  state  it,  but  not  what  he  heard. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  did  see  it.  That's  all  we  wish 
with  the  witness. 

Before  the  cross-examination  was  proceeded  with  the  following  agreement  was 
entered  into  by  counsel  on  either  side  : 

"We  agree  that  the  time-tables  of  any  railroad  in  the  United  States,  duly 
certified  from  the  office  of  the  company,  for  the  month  of  April,  186.0,  and  con- 
nected with  the  routes  from  the  city  of  Washington  to  Canada,  and  from  Detroit 
to  Quebec,  may  be  put  in  evidence,  and  shall  be  received  without  objection  ;  and, 
further,  that  these  time-tables  shall  be  produced  on  either  side  before  the  close 
of  the  case,  in  the  regular  process  of  the  examination." 


172  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11     SURRATT. 

Cross-examination  : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  time-tables  sliowing  when  the  first  steamboat  went  np  tlie 
lake  to  Burlington  from  White  Hall  I 

A.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  the  time  that  it  arrived  at  Burlington — that 
is,  the  day  of  the  month.  I  know  it  was  on  a  Tuesday  morning  that  I  took  the 
passengers  from  the  first  trip  of  the  boat,  because  her  trips  are  only  Tuesdays 
and  Fridays. 

Q.  Can  you  ascertain  the  day  of  the  month,  when  you  return  home  ? 

A.  I  cannot.  There  is  no  way  that  I  can  get  the  date,  sure.  The  accounts 
go  in  regularly  every  trip.  There  is  no  difference  in  them  ;  they  are  all  alike. 
I  could  send  you  the  account  for  the  month ;  that  is  all. 

Q.  You  do  not  know,  as  I  understand  from  your  testimony,  whether  these 
parties  came  by  the  steamboat  to  Burlington,  or  not? 

A.  They  told  me  that  they  lay  in  the  depot  at  Burlington  all  night. 

Q.  You  started  the  next  morning  at  5.55  if 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  train  brought  them  to  you? 

A.  It  is  a  short  train.  There  is  a  branch  road  from  Burlington  to  Essex 
Junction.     I  think  there  are  seven  miles  of  road  there. 

Q.  They  arrived,  then,  at  Essex  Junction  before  5  55  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  1  think,  at  that  season,  5  o'clock  in  the  morning  was  the  time  for  leaving 
Essex.  I  left  White  Hall  Junction  at  11  55;  arrived  at  Essex  Junction  at  5, 
and  left  there  immediately,  as  soon  as  I  could  get  the  passengers  removed  and 
take  on  baggage,  tVc. ;  and  then  reached  St.  Albans,  twenty-five  miles  further 
north,  at  G  o'clock. 

Q.  How  far  beyond  St.  Albans  did  you  run? 

A.  I  go  twenty-four  miles  to  Rouse's  Point  the  next  morning. 

Q.  From  where? 

A.  From  St.  Albans. 

Q.  AVhat  train  took  up  your  passengers  at  St.  Albans,  and  went  on  im- 
mediately ? 

A.  It  was  the  morning  mail  train  out  of  St.  Albans,  going  west. 

Q.  To  Ogdensburg  and  Montreal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  passengers  for  Ogdensburg  and  Montreal  went  to  Rouse's 
Point  on  the  train,  and  then  they  separated. 

Q.  What  interval  was  there  between  your  arrival  at  St.  Albans  and  the  de- 
parture of  the  train  for  Rouse's  Point? 

A.  I  think  the  time  allowed  for  breakfast  at  that  season  was  twenty  or  thirty 
minutes.  At.  Rouse's  Point  there  are  two  trains  running  northwest — one  to 
Ogdensburg  and  the  other  to  Montreal. 

Q.  What  time  does  that  train  to  Montreal  arrive  in  Montreal  1 

A.  At  9.45,  I  think. 

Q.  I  understand  you  ran  up  to  Rouse's  Point  in  the  morning  after  your 
arrival  at  St.  Albans  and  made  a  long  stay  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  from  7.15  a.m.  to  5.45  in  the  evening.  I  took  my 
departure  for  White  River  Junction  at  5.45  in  the  evening. 

Q.  At  what  time  does  the  afternoon  train  which  you  took  at  Rouse's  Point 
leave  Montreal  ? 

A.  I  think,  at  that  season,  it  left  at  3  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  the  passengers,  by  the  Montreal  train  reach  St.  Albans  in  time  to 
connect  with  you  at  5.45  ? 

A.  They  came  back  to  Rouse's  Point  at  5.30,  I  think — giving  me  fifteen 
minutes  in  which  to  change  passengers,  baggage,  &;c. 

Q.  That  is  the  connecting  train  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  173 

Q.  What  time  do  you  reach  White  River  Junction  ?• 

A.   I  reached  White  River  Junction,  at  that  season,  at  1  o'clock  a.  ra. — in  the 

Q.  What  train,  coming  south,  takes  up  your  passengers  at  AVhite  River 
Junction  1 

A.  At  that  time  it  was  a  train  going  directly  through  Springfield.  We  have 
two  roads  to  New  York — one  by  way  of  Springfield,  and  the  other  by  way  of 
Albany. 

Q.  Taking  the  New  York  road  first,  what  time  did  the  train  leave  which  takes 
your  passengers?     What  time  does  that  train  leave  for  Albany? 

A.  It  leaves  for  Essex  Junction  at  8.40,  I  think,  in  the  evening,  going  to 
Burlington  and  Albany.  Left  White  River  Junction  at  that  time  at  1.10,  I 
think,  for  Springfield. 

Q.  The  train  from  New  York,  then,  leaves  at  Essex  Junction  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  for  New  York  by  way  of  Troy  and  Albany. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  route  except  the  Springfield  route  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  except  by  way  of  the  boats  from  Rouse's  Point.  The  boats  run 
from  Lake  Champlain  to  White  Hall,  leaving  Rouse's  Point  at  5.45. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  the  tall  one  of  the  two  persons  who  went  on  that 
trip  with  you  had  any  "  goatee,"  as  it  is  called? 

A.  I  think  not,  though  I  would  not  be  sure. 

Q.  Was  not  his  face  quite  clean  1 

A.  Otherwise  than  a  slight  moustache. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  eyes  at  all  ? 

A.  I  could  not  state  po.-=itively  anything  about  them. 

Q.  Did  not  his  skin  strike  you  as  being  quite  fair? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  should  not  think  he  looked  very  fair.  He  was  poorly  clad  and 
looked  as  if  he  had  been  without  his  sleep  for  some  time. 

Q.  The  taller  one  of  the  two  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  did  all  the  talking  that  was  done.  He  looked  rather  rusty — 
not  particularly  fair. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Avhether  or  not,  in  the  month  of  April,  especially  the 
April  of  1865,  the  route  from  Albany  to  Burlington  was  very  irregular? 

A.  The  boats  were  irregular  in  their  arrivals  at  White  Hall.  They  were  not 
so  irregular  ont  of  P)urlington. 

Q.  Did  they  fail  to  make  their  connection  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  did  on  the  beginning  of  navigation. 

Q.  That  is  a  daily  route,  is  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  more  than  a  trip  a  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  It  takes  the  boats  some  twelve  or  fourteen  hours  to  make  the 
passage  over  the  lake.     They  go  up  one  day  and  come  down  the  next. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  that  same  route  goes  to  Rutland  or  not  ? 

A.  O,  yes,  sir ;  we  connect  with  a  train  through  to  Rutland,  at  Saratoga, 
Troy,  and  Albany. 

Q.  Does  the  boat  also  go  to  Rutland  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  goes  to  White  Hall. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  or  not  the  Troy  train  to  Rutland  connects  with 
any  train  immediately — morning  train  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  that  train  connected  with  us  as  it  does  now.  I  take  the 
sleeping  car  that  comes  from  Troy  on  at  Essex  Junction. 

Q.  At  that  time,  according  to  your  recollection,  the  morning  passengers  from 
Troy  did  not  lie  over  at  Rutland  for  the  evening  train? 

A.  I  think  I  received  those  morning  passengers  from  Troy  and  Albany,  with 
the  sleeping  car,  on  my  train  at  Essex. 

Q.  Has  the  arrangement  beeu  altered  since  1 


174  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  a  passenger  leave  Troy  in  the  morning,  going  north,  does  the  train  go 
through,  or  does  he  lie  over  in  Rutland  till  the  night  train  passes  and  then 
goes  on  ? 

A.  No,  sir:  that  train  connects  with  the  Rutland  train.  Some  few  weeks 
ago  they  did  not  run  in  connection  with  our  express  train.  This  irregularity, 
however,  continued  but  a  short  time.  It  was  caused  by  some  misunderstanding 
among  the  managers  of  the  road. 

Re-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  state,  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  navigation  the 
boats  were  sometimes  irregular? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  I  understand  you  to  state,  also,  that  this  train  that  you  speak  of  contained 
the  first  boat-load  of  the  season ;  am  I  right? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  first  boat-load  on  the  lake  for  that  season. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  state  that,  after  you  arrived  at  St.  Albans,  you  never 
saw  these  two  men  again  ? 

A.  I  am  not  positive;  I  was  questioned  by  a  gentleman  as  I  was  passing  to 
my  boarding  place. 

(Mr.  Merrick  objected.     Objection  susta'ned.) 

Mr.  Bradley  desiring  some  rule  laid  down  as  to  the  re-examination  of  wit- 
nesses, after  the  cross-examination  had  been  concluded, 

The  Court  said:  The  rule  Avill  be,  that  wherever  there  is  any  doubt  on  the 
part  of  one  of  the  counsel  as  to  what  the  answer  of  a  witness  on  cross-examina- 
tion has  been,  he  may  repeat  the  question  to  the  witness,  and  ascertain  from  him 
what  answer  he  had  given. 

Charles  H.  Blinn,  clerk,  Weldon  House,  St.  Albans,  Vermont;  residence, 
St.  Albans,  Vermont. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  What  was  your  employment,  and  where  were  you  employed,  between  the 
10th  and  the  15th  of  April,  1865? 

A.  Between  the  10th  and  the  15th  of  April,  1865,  I  was  employed  as  night 
watchman  in  the  passenger  depot  of  the  Vermont  Central  depot  in  Burlington, 
Vermont. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  the  first  passenger  boat  of  that  season  landed  its 
passengers  at  Burlington  that  season  ? 

A.  The  first  trip  made  by  the  boat  that  season  was  the  17th  of  April. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  ? 

A.  Monday. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  it  arrived  in  time  for  the  passengers  to  take  the 
train  ? 

A.  It  was  four  hours  late 

Q.  At  what  time  did  it  arrive  ? 

A.  About  twelve  o'clock  in  the  night. 

Q.  Were  you  on  watch  that  night  in  the  depot  ? 

A.  Ye.'^,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  two  men  in  that  depot?     If  so,  tell  us  about  them. 

A.  There  were  two  men  who  came  in  from  the  boat;  one  was  a  tall  man,  and 
the  other  shorter.  They  requested  permission  to  sleep  in  the  depot  until  the 
train  loft  for  Montreal. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  the  train  leave? 

A.  The  train  left  at  4.20  the  next  morning. 

Q.  Where  did  that  boat  come  from  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  175 

A.  It  came  from  White  Hall,  and  connects  with  the  cars  from  'blew  York 
city.     It  runs  from  White  Hall  to  Rouse's  Point,  on  the  lake. 

Q.  State  what  arrangement,  if  any,  was  made  between  you  and  them,  about 
sleepinoj  there. 

A.  They  requested  permission  to  sleep  on  the  benches  in  the  depot. 

Q    Which  one  made  the  request  1 

A.  The  taller  gentleman ;  he  did  all  the  talking. 

Q.  What  did  he  say] 

A.  He  wished  to  know  if  he  could  sleep  there.  People  very  often  come  along 
in  that  way,  when  the  cars  from  the  Rutland  road  were  late. 

Q.  I  am  merely  asking  what  he  said? 

A.  He  wished  to  know  if  he  could  sleep  there.  I  asked  him  if  he  did  not 
wish  to  go  to  a  hotel.  He  said  he  thought  not ;  he  was  going  to  Montreal  on 
the  early  train,  and  would  like  to  sleep  there  in  the  depot. 

Q.  Did  you  call  him  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  in  time  for  the  train. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  call  him  1 

A.  I  should  think  4  o'clock, 

Q.  In  the  morning  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  on  Tuesday  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  that  was  on  Tuesday  morning,  the  18th. 

Q.  After  he  went  out  did  you  see  anything  where  he  had  been  lying  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Any  article  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  until  daylight. 

Q.  Did  you  at  daylight  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  it  there  ? 

A.  I  have,  or  something  that  resembles  it  very  much. 

Q.  Just  look  at  it  and  state  if  you  recognize  it  as  the  same. 

A.  (After  examining  it.)     I  do  recognize  that  as  the  same  handkerchief. 

Q.  Where,  in  relation  to  where  the  tall  man  slept,  was  that  1 

A.  That  was  near  the  seat,  on  the  floor,  where  his  head  lay. 

(The  handkerchief  was  here  shown  to  the  jury.) 

Q.  Is  there  any  name  on  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  "J.  H.  Surratt,  2." 

Mr.  Bradley  : 
The  name  is  all  spelt  right ;  but  we  canaot  admit  the  handwriting.     If  it  is 
his,  you  will  have  to  prove  it. 

The  Court  : 
Q.  When  you  picked  it  up  was  that  name  on  it  ? 
A.  It  was. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 
Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  handkerchief  after  you  picked  it  up  ? 
A    I  did  not  discover  the  name  until  three  hours  afterwards. 
Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it  after  you  discovered  the  name  1 
A.  I  gave  it  to  my  mother  to  be  washed. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  discovered  the  name  did  you  make  known  the  fact 
that  you  did  discover  this  handkerchief  with  the  name  on  it  ? 
A.  I  made  it  known  during  the  day,  I  presume. 
Q.  To  whom  did  you  make  it  known  ? 

A.  I  showed  it  first  to  the  agent  of  the  railroad  company  at  Burlington. 
Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  communicated  the  fact  to  St.  Albans  ? 


176  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  scarcely  tliiuk  he  did. 

Q.  I  say,  do  you  know  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  either  of  these  men  after  they  left  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

SciPiANO   Grillo,  restaurant  keeper  and  musician,  residence  navy  yard, 
sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  Where  were  you  living  in  the  month  of  April,  1S65  ? 

A.  My  residence  was  at  the  navy  yard. 

Q.  "What  business  had  you  here  in  the  city  1 

A.  I  kept  a  restaurant  under  Ford's  theatre. 

Q.  IHd  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  by  sight  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  him  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  for  five  or  six  years  before  the  assassination.  I  have  been 
in  the  profession  myself. 

Q.  As  an  actor  1 

A.  No,  sir,  as  a  musician. 

Q.  Did  you  know  David  Herold,  one  of  those  tried  for  conspiracy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  George  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  By  sight. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Herold  last,  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  near  about  5  o'clock. 

Q.  On  the  same  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when,  before  the  assassination,  did  you  last  see  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  About  ten  minutes  after  that;  we  walked  together  down  Pennsylvania 
avenue,  and  met  Atzerodt  at  the  Kirkwood  House,  on  the  steps. 

Q.  Who  walked,  with  you? 

A.  Herold. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  take  this  walk  with  Herold  ? 

A.  As  I  was  coming  down  Tenth  street  I  met  Herold,  and  he  asked  me  if  I 
bad  seen  John  Wilkes  Booth.  I  told  him  I  had  ;  that  I  had  seen  him  in  the 
morning  about  11  o'clock  ;  that  he  had  some  letters  which  he  had  received  ;  his 
letters  used  to  come  addressed  to  the  theatre. 

Q.   Proceed  and  state  what  further  occurred. 

A.  1  told  him  that  I  saw  him  a  little  after  4,  on  horseback ;  that  he  stopped 
in  my  place  and  got  a  drink. 

Q.  AYhat  kind  of  a  horse  was  it  that  he  rode  ? 

A.  A  small  horse — gray,  I  believe,  as  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me.  Her- 
old after  this  said  to  me,  "  Do  you  know  that  General  Lee  is  in  town  V  I  told 
him  no,  I  did  not ;  that  I  hadn't  heard  of  it.  He  says  "  Yes,  he  is  stopping 
down  at  AVillards'." 

Q.  This,  1  understand  you,  was  the  day  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  the  afternoon.  Says  he,  "  Yes,  he  is  stopping  at  Willards'  ; 
let's  take  a  walk  up  there,  and  find  out  something  about  it."'  We  started  up, 
and  as  we  got  to  the  Kiikwood  House  we  met  Atzerodt  sitting  on  the  steps. 
He  stopped  to  talk  to  him,  and  1  walked  ahetid  as  far  as  the  corner  to  wait  for 
him.  He  stopped  wiih  him  two  or  three  minutes,  and  then  came  back,  and  walked 
witli  me  up  to  Willards'.  After  we  got  inside  of  Willards',  Herold  met  two 
young  men.  They  talked  together  awhile ;  I  do  not  know  what  they  said. 
As  they  were  in  the  act  of  parting,  Herold  says  :  "  You  are  going  to-night,  aiu't 
you  V     One  of  the  young  men  answered  and  said,  "  Yes." 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  177 

Q.  In  what  tone  of  voice  was  the  talk  before  that  ? 

A.  In  a  low  tone.     They  were  apart  to  themselves. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  more  said  that  you  could  hear  other  than  what  you  have 
repeated  ] 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  "What  did  this  man  who  said  he  was  going  to-night  do,  after  saying-  "yes." 

A.  Nothing:.  AVe  left  him  and  went  out  toward  Grover's  theatre.  I  noticed 
Herold  walking  a  little  lame,  and  says  to  him,  "What's  the  matter  1  You  are 
walking  lame."  lie  replied,  "Nothing;  my  boot  hurts  me."  When  we  got 
behind  the  park  there,  he  pulled  up  his  pants  to  fix  his  boot.  I  then  noticed 
that  he  had,  run  down  in  his  boot  leg,  a  big  dagger,  the  handle  of  which  was 
four  or  five  inches  above  the  leg  of  the  boot.  I  said  to  him,  "  What  do  you 
want  to  carry  that  for  ?"  He  answered,  "  I  am  going  into  the  country  to-night 
on  horseback,  and  it  will  be  handy  there."  I  laughed  at  him,  and  said  "  You 
ain't  going  to  kill  anybody  with  that  ?"  I  left  him  at  the  door  of  Geary's  bil- 
liard saloon.     I  went  up  stairs,  and  he  walked  ahead. 

Q.  Look  about  in  this  room  and  see  if  you  see  anybody  that  looks  like  the 
man  who  said  "  yes,"  when  Herold  asked  him  if  he  was  going  to-night  ] 

A.  Well,  the  gentleman,  I  believe,  is  that  man,  (pointing  to  the  prisoner,) 
but  I  don't  know.  As  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  he  looks  very  much  like 
him.     He  had  no  beard,  however. 

Q.  Had  he  a  moustache  ? 

A.  A  little  moustache,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  goes.  I  never  was  acquainted 
with  the  man  before.     Who  he  resembled  I  could  not  exactly  remember. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  anybody  that  told  you  that  General  Lee  was  there,  did 
you? 

A.  I  inquired  there,  and  found  there  was  no  General  Lee  about. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  in  partnership  with  Mr.  Taltaval  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  hat  did  this  person  have  on  in  Willards'  Hotel — the  one 
that  resembled  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  As  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  I  believe  it  was  a  black  hat.  It  was  a 
slouched  hat  with  a  stiff  brim. 

Cross-examination  : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  you  have  been  in  the  profession  as  a  musician  of  the  theatre 
yourself,  and  had  a  restaurant  close  by  Ford's  theatre  at  this  time ;  I  will  ask 
you  if  you  know  Mr.  Gilford? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Carlan,  who  used  to  be  connected  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  an  actor  named  Hest? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  assassination  did  you  see  either  of  those  three,  or  any 
of  them,  out  on  the  pavement  in  front  of  Ford's  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  was  not  out  of  the  place  myself.  I  was  in  the  orchestra  be- 
tween the  first  and  second  acts ;  but  in  the  third  act  we  had  nothing  to  do, 
(being  always  dismissed  after  the  curtain  is  down,)  and  so  I  went  out  and  went 
inside  of  my  place. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  any  soldiers  sitting  out  on  the  platform  there  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember.  There  were  a  great  many  people  out  there  all  the 
tinie. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  sitting  on  the  carriage  platform  ? 


178  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.    SUEEATT. 

A.  T  could  not  tell,  because  I  did  not  take  any  notice. 

Q.  Did  you  return  to  the  theatre  again  before  the  assassination  of  the  Presi- 
dent ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  in  your  restaurant. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Uo  you  recollect  of  Booth  coming  in  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  was  behind  the  bar  at  the  time. 

Q.  Was  anybody  with  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  came  alone. 

Q,  How  long  was  that  before  you  heard  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  It  must  have  been  between  eight  or  ten  minutes,  or  fifteen  minutes  ;  I 
cannot  remember  exactly. 

Q.  "Will  you  describe,  if  you  recollect,  what  light  there  was  in  front  of  the 
theatre,  and  where  it  was  placed  that  night? 

A.  We  had  two  lights  outside  in  the  street ;  then  there  were  two  lamps  in 
front  of  the  theatre.     The  light  is  very  brilliant  there. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  where  the  clock  is  placed  in  that  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  in  the  passage  as  you  enter  the  building. 

Q.  On  the  right-hand  1 

A.  In  the  centre. 

By  a  Juror: 

Q.  In  the  centre  of  the  doorway? 

A.  In  the  centre  of  the  doorway  nearest  the  alley.  On  the  one  side  is  the 
ticket  ofiice,  and  on  the  other  is  the  door  going  into  the  theatre;  and  in  the  cen- 
tre of  that  door- way  is  the  clock. 

Q.  Fixed  like  the  clock  in  this  room  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

At  this  point  the  court  took  a  recess  of  half  an  hour. 

aftp:r.\oo.\  session. 

John  T.  Tibbett  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  in  Prince  George's  county  ? 

A.  I  lived  there  twenty-two  years  first ;  I  left  home  then  and  went  soldiering. 
I  went  back  there  and  staid  twelve  months,  and  I  have  been  here  in  Wash- 
ington ever  since. 

Q.  You  are  now  living  then  in  the  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  city  1 

A.  On  the  island,  near  the  Washington  monument. 

Q,  What  is  your  business  ] 

A.  Blacksmithing. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Washington  ? 

A.  I  came  to  Washington  about  the  10th  of  December  last. 

Q.  You  say  you  were  in  the  army  a  portion  of  the  time,  in  what  regiment  ? 

A.  The  first  District  Columbia  cavalry. 

Q.  You  were  enlisted  in  this  city  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  the  army  ? 

A.  I  enlisted  August  5,  1863,  and  served  until  November,  1865. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  in  1863  and  186'i  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  179 

A.  A  part  of  the  time  in  1S63  I  was  soldiering,  and  a  part  of  that  year  I 
wa3  carrying  the  mail  from  Washington  to  Charlotte  Hall. 

Q.  Where  is  Charlotte  Hall  ? 

A.  I  disrcmcmber  whether  it  is  in  St.  Mary's  or  Charles  county,  I  was  not 
very  much  acquainted  in  those  parts. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying  the  mail  between 
those  two  points  ? 

A.  1  am  positive  I  was  more  than  a  month. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  if  you  know  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  1 

A.  I  have  known  John  H.  Surratt  for  the  last  ten  or  eleven  years. 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  the  habit  of  seeing  him  frequently  ? 

A.  I  have,  in  passing  and  repassing  from  Washington  down  to  my  father's, 
before  carrying  the  mail. 

Q.  Did  you  know  his  mother,  Mrs.  Mary  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  mother  and  son  together  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  them  conversing  in  the  presence  of  each  other  in  re- 
ference to  Abraham  Lincoln,  late  President  of  the  United  States  ?  If  so,  state 
what  you  have  heard  them  say  ] 

A.  1  have  heard  them  conversing  but  very  little  together.  Mr.  John  H. 
Surratt  had  but  very  little  to  say  when  I  would  be  passing  there,  but  I  have 
heard  Mrs.  Surratt  say 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  would  like  to  know  upon  what  ground  this  evidence  is 
offered. 

The  Court.  Do  you  propose  to  prove  the  conversation  betv/een  the  prisoner 
and  Mrs.  Surratt  in  reference  to  Abraham  Lincoln  ? 

The  District  Attorxey.  Yes,  sir;  the  convei-sation  in  presence  of  the  pris- 
oner, expressing  malice  towards  the  President,  and  pointing  directly  towards 
his  assassination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  How  long  before  the  assassination? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  do  not  care  how  long. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Y'ou  will  hardly  say  a  conspiracy  was  formed  in  18G3. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  will  show,  before  we  are  through,  that  the  conspiracy 
was  formed  in  18G3. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  think  the  evidence  is  not  competent,  but  we  waive  any 
objection  to  it. 

WiT.\E.«;s.  I  heard  Mrs.  Surratt  say 

]\Ir.  Merrick.  In  the  presence  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

Witness  Yes.  I  heard  her  say  she  would  give  any  one  $1,000  if  they 
would  kill  Lincoln. 

Q.  State  if  you  heard  any  other  declarations  by  the  prisoner,  or  by  his 
m.it'ier  in  presence  of  the  prisoner,  during  this  period  of  time ;  and  if  so,  state 
what  they  were. 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  more,  except  as  I  would  hear  them  talk  occa- 
sionally as  I  would  pass,  abusing  the  President;  I  paid  very  little  attention  to 
them. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  propose  now  to  show  by  this  witness  that  in 
speaking  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  they  made  use  of  the  most 
opprobrious  language,  expressing  feelings  of  personal  hostility.  I  offer  this 
upon  the  general  principle  that  in  a  murder  case  I  may  show  the  feelings  of  the 
prisoner  towards  the  deceased,  and  especially  that  he  used  expressions  of  malice 
towards  him  prior  to  the  commission  of  the  crime. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  witness  has  already  said  that  he  recollects  nothing  fur- 


180  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

tlier,  except  that  he  has  heard  a  kind  of  abuse  of  the  President.  If  the  object 
of  the  g-entleman  is  to  know  what  kind  of  abuse,  it  may  be  obtained  possibly 
in  some  other  way ;  I  do  not  think  in  this  way  it  can  be  reached. 

Mr.  PiKRREPOXT.  We  put  the  question  directly,  then. 

Q.  State  what  you  have  heard  said. 

A.  I  have  not  heard  much  pass  ;  only  occasionally  I  would  hear  abuse. 

Q.  State  the  words  that  were  said. 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  what  the  words  were.  I  think,  I  will  not  be  positive, 
I  have  heard  Mr.  Surratt  say 

Mr.  Bradlky.  You  need  not  state  what  you  think  you  have  heard. 

Mr.  PiERREPO\T.  You  understand  that  we  cannot  expect  you  to  repeat  the 
precise  words,  nor  do  we  desire  you  to  state  anything  that  is  not  strictly  in 
accordance  with  the  truth.  You  are  permitted  to  state  the  substance  of  what 
you  have  heard  the  prisoner  say  in  reference  to  Lincoln. 

Witness.  Whenever  there  was  a  victory,  I  have  heard  Surratt  sav,  "  The 
d d  northern  army  and  the  leader  thereof  ought  to  be   sent  to  hell." 

Mr,  Bradley.  We  object  to  that. 

Q.  In  any  of  these  conversations  to  which  you  have  referred,  did  you  hear 
the  name  of  Abraham  Lincoln  mentioned  ] 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.  The  witness  is  to  be  asked  simply  to  state 
what  he  heard.) 

The  District  Attorney.  In  any  of  these  conversations  did  Surratt  men- 
tion the  name  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  leading.) 

Tlie  Court.  That  is  a  leading  question. 

Witness.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  he  did  or  not,  but  at  that  time  I 
thought 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  what  you  thought. 

Mr.  Pierrkpont.  Did  you  in  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt  hear  Mr.  Sur- 
ratt say  anything  in  reference  to  who  was  the  leader  of  the  northern  army  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  either  of  them  say  who  was  the  leader  of  the  northern  army  1 

A.  1  have  heard  Mrs.  Surratt  call  the  President's  name  often;  but  as  to  Mr. 
Surratt,  I  never  heard  him  speak  but  very  little  of  the  President. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Surratt  present  when  she  spoke  of  the  President? 

A.  He  then  had  the  mail,  carrying  it  into  the  room,  if  I  mistake  not,  to  open  it. 

Q.  Was  he  within  close  hearing  1 

A.  He  was  in  the  room ;   I  think  he  was  within  hearing. 

Q.  In  speakinj;-  of  the  leader  of  the  northern  army,  was  there  anything  he 
said  that  indicated  who  he  meant  as  the  leader  of  the  northern  army  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  he  meant  by  that  word;  he  only  said  "  the  leader  of 
the  northern  army." 

Q.  And  when  his  mother  was  speaking  of  Lincoln  in  his  presence,  he  did  not 
say  anything  about  "the  leader?" 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Tlien,  when  speaking  after  victories,  at  the  time  he  used  these  words,  "  That 
they  ought  to  go  to  hell,  and  the  leader  of  the  northern  army  too,"  who  did  he 
say  ought  to  go  to  hell  ? 

A.  He  did  not  say  ;  he  immediately  turned  his  back  and  walked  off. 

Q.  What  was  the  manner  in  which  that  was  said  1 

A.  He  had  heard  of  some  victory  won  by  the  northern  array,  or  of  emanci- 
pation, or  something  of  that  kind;  I  disremember  what  caused  him  to  use  the 
words. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  more  than  once  use  words  to  that  effect  ? 

A.  T  do  not  recollect  hearing  him  say  that  but  once. 

Q.  Was  his  mother  present  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  181 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  wlietlier  she  was  or  not. 

Q.  Was  anybody  else  present  when  she  said  she  would  herself  give  81,000 
to  have  Lincoln  killed,  except  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  there  was  any  one  in  the  room  but  him  and  her. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  At  what  time  did  yon  carry  the  mail  in  1SG3  ? 

A.  In  February  or  March. 

Q.  Was  it  a  daily  mail  1 

A.  A  daily  mail ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  then  in  the  service  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  drove  the  stage  ? 

A.  I  drove  a  buggy,  and  carried  the  mail. 

Q.  Who  was  the  contractor? 

A.  Mr.  Thompson. 

Q.  HoAV  soon  after  you  begun  to  carry  the  mail  was  it  that  you  heard  Mrs. 
Surra tt  use  that  language  ? 

A.  It  was,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  near  about  the  first  of  March. 

Q.  This  was  about  the  middle  of  your  time  of  carrying  the  mail  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  they  talking  about  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  they  were  talking  about.  I  cannot  recollect  so  far 
back. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  any  of  the  conversation  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     They  must  have  been 

Q.  Not  what  they  must  have  been ;  do  yon  recollect  what  they  were  talking 
about  ? 

A.  I  recollect  of  her  asking  some  question  about  Washington,  as  .she  always 
did.  Every  day,  as  I  passed  backward  and  forward,  they  would  ask  if  I  had 
seen  blockade  runners,  or  something  or  other.  When  I  would  go  down  from 
Washington  they  would  ask  how  were  times  in  Washington,  and  when  I  came 
up  from  Charlotte  Hall  they  would  ask  if  I  had  heard  any  news  from  the  south  ? 

Q.  On  this  occasion  nobody  was  there  but  you  three? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  recollect  what  they  were  talking  about  when  you  heard 
her  say  she  would  give  81,000  to  any  one  who  would  kill  Lincoln  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  all  you  heard  or  recollect  of  the  conversation? 

A.  That  is  all  I  recollect. 

Q.  You  were  then  carrying  the  mail  of  the  United  States;  did  you  go  and 
tell  anybody  of  that  ? 

A.  1  do  not  think  that  I  spoke  that  to  any  one.  I  paid  very  little  attention 
to  what  I  heard  in  that  j)art  of  the  world  in  those  times.     I  did  not  notice  it. 

Q.  You  never  told  anybody  you  heard  Mrs.  Surratt  say  she  would  give 
81,000  to  any  one  who  would  kill  Lincoln  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  until  it  was  somewhere,  I  believe,  about  two  months  ago,  I 
5poke  it  to  a  gentleman  in  Washington  here. 

Q.   Who  was  that  ? 

A.  It  was  my  uncle. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ? 

A.  Watson  is  his  name — William  J.  Watson.  I  suppose  he  let  the  cat  out 
of  the  wallet. 

Q.  This  Mr.  Watson  is  the  only  one  you  ever  told  this  to,  and  that  i^iily  two 
months  ago  ? 


s 


182  TRIAL    OF    JONH    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  If  I  mistake  not,  I  told  my  father  of  it.     I  will  not  be  positive. 

Q.  Where  does  William  J.  Watson  live  1 

A.  In  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland. 

Q.  How  far  from  here  1 

A.  Thirty-eight  miles. 

Q.  When  were  you  discharged  ? 

A.  In  November,  I  think. 

Q.  Where  were  you  stationed  in  the  spring  of  1S65  ? 

A.  I  was  with  the  army  of  the  James,  on  the  north  side  of  the  James  river. 

Q.  With  General  Grant  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  discharged  1 

A.  At  Fortress  Monroe. 

Q.  You  say  you  heard  John  Surratt  say — and  you  cannot  recollect  hearing 
him  say  it  but  once — that  he  wished  the  northern  army  and  their  leader  was  iu 
hell.     Where  was  that  ? 

A.  It  was  at  his  own  house,  or  at  his  mother's  house. 

Q.  Was  it  while  you  were  carrying  the  mail,  in  February  or  March,  1SG3  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  that  was  after  some  victory,  or  something  about 
emancipation  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  was  alluding  to  emancipation,  or  whether  it 
was  some  victory ;  it  was  something  they  were  talking  about. 

Q.  Was  anybody  present  then  1 

A.  I  think  there  were  some  two  or  three  in  the  room. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  of  them  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Mrs.  Surratt  and  her  son  both  knew  you  were  employed  by  the  govern- 
ment as  a  mail  carrier  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yet  you  heard  these  two  expressions.  Can  you  describe  where  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt was  when  you  heard  her  make  use  of  that  expression  ? 

A.  She  was  in  the  bar-room,  standing,  I  think,  near  about  the  centre  of  the 
floor. 

Q.  Where  was  he  ? 

A.  He  was  then  passing,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect.  Whether  he  had  opened 
the  door  to  go  into  the  room,  or  not,  I  cannot  state. 

Q.  Was  that  to  assort  the  mail  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  he  had  not  gone  through  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  he  had  gone  through  or  not.  I  am  confident 
he  was  there  just  before  the  time  she  spoke. 

Q.  Then  she  said  that  to  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  she  said  that  to  me. 

Q.  And  so  far  as  you  are  positive,  you  do  not  know  whether  any  one  else 
was  present  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  know  of  any  one  else  being  present. 

Q.  You  say  you  mentioned  it  to  your  uncle  Watson,  and  you  may  have  men- 
tioned it  to  your  father.     Who  did  you  mention  it  to  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  who  I  mentioned  it  to  after  that. 

Q.  Who  came  after  you  ? 

A.  A  detective,  or  some  one;  I  do  not  know  who  he  was. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  man  1 

A.  He  was  an  aged-looking  man,  somewhere  about  thirty-five  or  forty,  I 
think.     I  could  not  call  his  name. 


TRIAL   OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  183 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Did  he  not  come  to  ask  you  what  you  knew  about  it  ? 

A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  "What  did  he  do  when  he  came  ? 

A.  He  said  he  had  a  summons  for  me,  and  gave  me  a  summons  to  appear  at 
the  court-house. 

Q.  Have  you  that  summons  with  you  1 

A.  I  have.    [Summons  produced.] 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  any  other  place  before  you  came  to  the  court-house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  went  to  a  good  many  other  places  before  1  came  here. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  any  other  place  and  have  a  conversation  about  this  busi- 
ness before  you  came  here  ? 

A.  He  ordered  me  to  report  to  Mr.  Carrington.  I  went  there,  and  Mr.  Car- 
rington  told  me  to  be  here  in  the  witness-room. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  anybody  else  besides  Mr.  Carrington  after  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  Yesterday  morning. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  you  did  not  tell  the  detective  or  Mr.  Carrington,  or 
anybody  else,  about  this  1 

A.  No,  sir,  not  that  I  recollect. 

(Examination  objected  to  by  the  district  attorney. 

The  Court.  The  witness  may  be  asked  whether  the  detective  gave  any 
promise  or  oftered  any  reward.) 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  anybody  yesterday  about  this  matter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  anybody  what  you  knew  about  this  business,  or  what  you 
could  prove  1 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not,  that  I  can  recollect. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  correctly,  that  you  did  not  mind  these  expressions 
much,  considering  tlie  kind  of  people  that  were  down  there  1  Were  these  ex- 
pressions common  in  that  part  of  the  world  1 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont,  as  too  large  a  scope  to  inquire  about 
expressions  "  in  that  part  of  the  world."  Objection  overruled,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  in  explanation  of  what  the  witness  had  already  said.) 

A.  That  expression  was  very  common  among  the  people  of  Prince  George's 
county,  Maryland. 

Robert  H.  Cooper  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  Are  you  now  in  the  army  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  the  army  ? 

A.  In  June,  1S65 ;  I  was  discharged. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  volunteer  service  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  what  State  ? 

A.  Pennsylvania,  Beaver  county,  town  of  Beaver, 

Q.  Do  you  live  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  there  ? 

A.  I  am  a  clerk  in  a  store. 

Q.  When  did  you  enter  the  army  ? 

A.  I  entered  it  in  Augn.«t,  1SG2. 

Q.  AVhat  was  your  service  ] 


184  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  was  in  the  artillery.  I  belonged  to  Thompson's  Independent  Battery, 
company  C,  Pennsylvania  artillery.  • 

Q.  Where  was  your  company  stationed  1 

A.  At  Camp  Barry,  intersection  of  Camp  Barry  with  the  Baltimore  pike. 

Q.  At  that  time  what  was  your  office  1 

A.  I  was  a  line  sergeant. 

Q.  In  April,  1SG5,  you  were  a  line  sergeant  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  remember  the  event  of  President  Lincoln's  assassination,  of  course  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  the  afternoon  of  that  day  were  you  at  your  camp  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  leave  your  camp  1 

A.  It  was  after  dress  parade.     Dress  parade  is  about  sundown. 

Q.  This  was  April  14,  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  that,  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  I  came  to  town. 

Q.  How  far. was  your  camp  from  Ford's  theatre  ? 

A.  I  presume  it  is  two  miles.     I  do  not  know  the  exact  distance. 

Q.  Who  did  you  come  in  with  1 

A.  I  came  in  with  Sergeant  Dye. 

Q.  Where  did  you  and  Sergeant  Dye  go  to  ? 

A.  We  went  down  to  Pennsylvania  avenue,  and  from  there  we  went  up  Tenth 
street  to  Ford's  theatre. 

Q.  What  did  you  go  to  Foi-d's  theatre  for — in  consequence  of  what  ? 

A.  There  was  no  particular  consequence — we  were  merely  going  to  camp. 
We  came  down  Pennsylvania  avenue  that  far,  and  went  up  10th  street. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  that  made  you  stop  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  theatre  what  did  Sergeant  Dye  do  ? 

A.  He  sat  down  on  the  platform  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  W"as  there  any  carriage  near  the  platform  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  the  Presi Jent's  carriage  was  standing  at  the  platform. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  sat  down  when  he  did  or  remained  s*^and- 
iug.  I  presume  I  sat  down  alongside  of  him,  but  did  not  sit  but  a  moment  or 
two. 

Q.  Then  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  think  I  moved  up  the  street  a  few  yards  towards  F  street. 

Q.  Then  what  ? 

A.  I  was  walking  up  and  down  the  street.  I  walked  up  to  the  corner  of  F 
street  once,  crossed  over  to  the  other  side  of  10th  street  and  walked  down  the 
other  side. 

Q.  Did  you  cross  back  again  on  the  same  side  the  theatre  was  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  went  across  right  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  -State  whether  you  spoke  to  anybody  ;  and  if  so,  to  whom  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  correctly.  Sergeant  Dye  was  sitting  there,  and  he 
and  I  may  have  had  some  conversation.  We  had  conversations  at  different 
times. 

Q.  While  you  were  walking  about  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  we  did.  "When  I  came  to  where  he  was  sitting  I  sometimes 
spoke  to  him. 

(Counsel  for  the  defence  objected  to  this  kind  of  examination  as  leading. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  court.) 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  any  other  person  that  you  remember  1 


TRIAL    OP    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  185 

A.  I  do  not  remomber  that  I  did. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  the  President's  carriage  standing  by  the  phitform  ? 

A.  Yos,  sir ;  Ave  observed  that  when  we  went  there. 

Q    Did  you  see  anybody  about  the  carriage  ?  and  if  so,  who  did  you  seo  ? 

A,  The  driver  sat  on  the  carriage,  and  while  we  remained  there  a  gentleman 
ap|)roached  the  carriage  to  the  rear  and  looked  in  at  the  rear  of  the  carriage. 

Q.  Tell  what  kind  of  a  man  he  was ;  I  speak  of  age,  height,  dress,  and  ap- 
pearance? 

A.  He  was  a  young  man,  very  genteelly  dressed  ;  that  was  all  I  noticed  about 
him.     I  did  not  observe  him  particularly. 

Q.  As  to  height,  what  would  you  say  ? 

A.  I  presume  he  was  about  five  feet  eight  or  ten  inches. 

Q.  Compared  with  yourself,  what  was  his  height,  without  going  into  feet  and 
inches. 

»A.  I  think  probably  he  was  about  the  same  height  I  am,  as  nearly  as  I  can 
recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  man  standing  there  near  the  wall  ? 

A.  I  observed  a  rough-looking  man  standing  near  the  wall  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Tell  about  his  height. 

A.  I  would  say,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  that  he  was  not  as  tall  as  the 
other  gentleman,  who  looked  into  the  rear  of  the  carriage. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  go  into  the  drinking  room   by   the  side   of  the 
theatre  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  I  saw  a  gentleman  go  into  the  drinking  saloon  below  the  theatre. 

Q.  Who  was  he — did  you  know  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  the  gentleman  ;  he  was  pointed  out. 

Mr.  Bradlkv.  That  is  not  evidence. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  proposed  to  show  that  this  man  was  pointed  out  to  witness 
as  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Objection  sustained. 

(Witness  at  this  point  partially  fainted,  and  proceedings  were  suspended  for 
Bome  moments  until  he  had  recovered.) 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  the  same  person  who  was  pointed  out  to  you  went  into 
the  drinking  saloon  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  1  observed  him  go  into  the  drinking  saloon. 

Q.  Was  he  pointed  out  to  you,  and  his  name  given  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  come  out  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  this  man  came  out  from  the  saloon,  what  did  he  do  ? 

A.  I  did  not  observe  him  after  he  came  out  from  the  saloon. 

Q.  Before  that,  did  you  hear  any  one  call  the  time  ?  and  if  so,  what  did  you 
hear  the  last  time  you  heard  it  1 

A.  The  last  time  1  heard  it  called  was  ten  minutes  past  ten.     It  was  after 
this  gentleman  came  out  of  the  saloon. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  time  called  before  that  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  distinctly  whether  I  did  or  not.     I  have  a  faint  recol- 
lection that  I  did,  but  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Were  you  so  situated  at  the  time  you  heard  the  time  called,  ten  minutes 
past  ten,  that  you  could  see  the  face  of  the  man  who  called  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   T  was  ijot. 

Q.  What  did  you  and  Sergeant  Dye  then  do  ?     State  what  occurred. 

A.  We  started  round  a  corner  and  Avent  to  a  saloon  to  get  some  oysters. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  exciting  your  suspicion  at  this  time  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  say  that  there  was  anything  particu'  sr  ih  it 
excited  my  suspicion. 
13 


186  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  from  anybody  else  exciting  your  suspicion  at  the 
time  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  Anything  that  was  done? 

Jlr.  PiERRRPOXT.  Anything  that  was  said  1 

The  Court.  He  may  state  anything  that  was  said  or  done  by  other  parties 
who  were  there  present  acting  together,  if  he  saw  or  heard  them. 

Q.  I  want  to   know   whether  you  had  completed  your  answer  in  regard  to 
vour  suspicion  ? 
'   A.  I  had. 

Q.  AVhat  did  you  and  Sergeant  Dye  do? 

A.  We  went  around  a  corner  to  an  oyster  saloon  and  ordered  some  oysters. 
Before  we  had  received  the  oysters  a  man  came  running  in  and  said  the  Presi- 
dent was  shot. 

Q.  What  then  did  you  do  ? 

A.  We  ate  some  of  our  oysters.  I  cannot  say  that  we  ate  them  all.  We  got 
up  and  went  out  to  H  street,  and  went  down  H  street  to  camp. 

Q.  As  you  were  going  down  H  street  to  camp,  on  which  side  of  the  street  did 
\ou  go  1 

A.  We  went  down  the  ria-ht-hand  side  to  somewhere  about  the  Printing  Office. 

Q.  What  occurred,  if  anything,  on  your  way  down  ? 

A.  As  we  were  going  down  H  street  there  was  a  lady  raised  a  window,  put 
her  head  out,  and  asked  us  what  was  going  on  down  town,  or  something  to  that 
effect. 

Q.  What  was  the  reply  ? 

A.  We  told  her  the  President  was  sliot.  She  asked  us  who  shot  him.  We 
replied,  Booth. 

Q.  AYas  there  anything  about  the  house  to  mark  it  ? 

A.  I  observed  there  were  high  steps  there. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  house  since,  or  passed  it  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  a  house  that  resembles  it. 

Q.  What  is  the  number  of  the  house  ? 

A.  541  H  street. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  it  lately  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  a  few  days  ago. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

A.  We  went  on  to  camp,  A  little  further  down  the  street  we  met  two  po- 
licemen. 

Q.  What  occuj-red  between  you  and  the  policemen? 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  will  not  do,  unless  they  were  part  of  the  conspirators. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  They  were  not  a  part  of  the  conspirators,  but  we  desire 
the  witness  to  answer  what  occurred. 

A.  Nothing  occurred.  We  met  them  and  passed  on.  As  we  met  them  wo 
told  them  the  President  was  shot. 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  what  occurred  between  you  and  the  policemen  ;  it 
is  not  proper  to  be  shown. 

Objection  sustained. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  In  what  street  was  that  oyster  saloon  where  you  got  your  oysters  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  now.     It  was  after  night,  and  I  did  not  take  notice  of  the 
street. 

Q.  Did  you  cross  any  street  before  you  turned  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  think  not.     We  went  round  the  corner  of  a  street. 

Q.  The  first  street  above  the  theatre? 

A.   I  cannot  recollect  whether  it  was  the  first  one  above  or  first  below. 

Q.  When  you  came  out  from  there,  did  you  not  start  directly  for  the  camp  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  187 

A.  Yes,  sir,  and  we  would  naturally  start  out  F  street  to  go  directly  to  the 
camp,  but  we  may  have  gone  along  the  next  street  below,  and  then  gone  up  to 
F  street. 

Q.  You  cannot  recollect  whether  you  went  towards  the  avenue  or  towards  II 
street  1 

A.  If  we  Avent  towards  the  avenue  we  did  not  go  more  than  to  the  next 
street  below,  I  do  not  recollect  which  way  we  went,  whether  north  or  south. 
I  know  we  went  not  more  than  two  squares  to  get  the  oysters,  and  then  went 
up  to  H  street  and  went  home. 

Q.  Just  after  you  had  ordered  your  oysters  some  one  came  in  and  said  the 
President  was  shot.     Tell  us  what  was  said  at  that  time. 

A.  We  were  very  much  confounded. 

Q.  What  did  the  man  say  as  he  came  in  ? 

A.  I  did  not  hear  him  say  anything  that  I  know  of  but  that  the  President 
was  shot.     He  was  a  stranger.     I  did  not  know  him. 

Q.  H»'  did  not  say  who  shot  him,  or  anything  more  about  it  ? 

A.  He  said  J.  Wilkes  Booth  had  shot  him. 

Q.  That  was  immediately  after  the  shooting  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  just  a  few  minutes  after  we  had  left  the  front  of  the 
theatre. 

Q.  When  I  inquired  particularly  as  to  where  the  oyster  saloon  was,  it  w^l9  in 
order  to  get  at  the  lapse  of  time  after  you  left  the  theatre.  What  time  did  it 
take  you  to  get  to  the  oyster  saloon  ? 

A.  It  could  not  have  been  more  than  a  minute  or  two — a  very  short  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  did  not  cross  Tenth  street  on  to  the  other 
side  of  Tenth  street  1 

A.  No,  sir,  we  did  not  go  there. 

Q.  You  know  {here  is  a  saloon  there? 

A.  There  may  be  one ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q    You  are  sure  you  turned  a  corner  ? 

A    Yes,  sir,  1  am  sure  of  that. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether,  in  going  into  the  restaurant,  you  had  to  go  up 
some  steps  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  we  went  straight  in  from  the  pavement. 

Q.  Do  y.  lu  recollect  whether  you  turned  to  the  right  or  left,  at  the  corner? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot  recollect  that. 

Q.  You  say  that  on  your  way  out  to  camp,  some  lady  raised  a  window  and 
called  to  you  to  know  what  was  going  on  down  street,  an  1  that  you  had  seen 
that  house  since  ;  who  pointed  it  out  to  you  ? 

A.  It  was  not  pointed  out  to  me  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  go  up  to  look  at  it  for  yourself? 

A.  I  was  told  to  go  along  the  street  to  see  if  I  could  observe  a  house  that  re- 
sembles the  one  described  as  541. 

Q.  Did  you  find  more  thail  one  that  resembled  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did  find  more  than  one  that  resembled  that  house. 

Q.  Was  there  any  house  adjoining  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Has  it  an  entrance  of  the  same  kind  ? 

A.  No,  sir  • 

Q.  What  is  the  difference? 

A.  There  is  an  all  y  riglit  at  the  side  of  the  house  where  the  lady  rai^^cd  the 
window ;   there  is  none  by  the  one  adjoining. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  the  alley  that  n  glit  or  when  you  looked  at  it  recently  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  observed  it  that  night,  I  observed  that  the  window  which  was 
raised  was  next  to  the  alley. 

Q.  Was  it  over  the  front  door  ? 


188  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir;  it  was  not  over  the  front  door,  it  was  to  the  left  of  the  front  door 

Q.  East  or  west  ? 

A.  East. 

Q.  Was  there  any  light  in  the  room  1 

A.  1  cannot  distinctly  recollect,  I  do  not  know  as  I  observed  that.  The 
moon  was  shining.  I  could  not  say  it  was  shining  bright,  but  it  was  shining 
so  that  I  could  see  a  considerable  distance  ahead  on  the  street. 

Q.  Was  it  a  clear  or  a  cloudy  night  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  a  clear  night. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  night  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  probably  about  twenty  minutes  to  eleven  o'clock,  as  near  as  I  can 
recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  quite  distinctly  about  the  moon  shining  and  the  night 
being  clear  1 

A.  I  remember  the  moon  was  shining,  but  to  say  whether  it  was  shining 
bright  or  not  I  could  not  tell.     I  think  it  was  a  clear  night. 

Q.  Are  you  as  confident  about  that  as  you  are  about  anything  else  that  night  ? 

A.  I  am  confident  the  moon  was  shining.  As  to  the  night  being  clear  I  did 
not  charge  my  memory  with  it.  I  think,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  though, 
that  the  night  was  clear. 

Q.  When  that  man  called  the  time,  do  you  recollect  anybody  else  out  in  front 
of  the  theatre  besides  yourself  and  Sergeant  Dye. 

A.  I  presume  there  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  noticed  two  or  three  other  gentlemen  standing  around  the  door 
of  the  theatre,  but  1  did  not  observe  them  particularly. 

Q.  Therefore  you  cannot  tell  whether  they  had  been  there  some  time  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  Were  you  armed  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  nothing  but  a  penknife. 

Q.  You  did  not  carry  your  revolver  wrapped  up  in  a  handkerchief? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  your  purpose  or  object  in  coming  into  town  that  particu- 
lar night  of  Good  Friday,  one  of  our  solemn  fasts  ? 

A.  We  had  no  particular  object  in  coming  into  town.  The  principal  thing 
we  came  in  for  was  to  witness  a  torch  light  procession  that  was  passing  up  the 
avenue 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  up  to  the  theatre  ? 

A.  It  was  about  half  past  nine  o'clock.  It  may  have  varied  a  few  minutes 
from  that,  but  not  more  than  two  or  three. 

Q.  You  staid  there  until  you  heard  this  man  call  out  "ten  minutes  past 
ten?" 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  immediately  after  that  left. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  like  a  military  movement — of  men  aligning  them- 
selves about  that  place  1 

A.  I  did  not  observe  that.  I  was  not  standing  in  front  of  the  theatre  ;  I  was 
walking  up  and  down,  and  was  not  paying  particular  attention. 

Q.  You  say  you  saw  one  gentleman  go  into  the  saloon ;  did  not  you  see  any 
one  else  go  in  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  saw  several  gentlemen  go  in ;  that  one  gentleman  was  pointed 
out  to  me. 

Q.  Do  yoiT  recollect  whether  a  good  many  went  in  before  that  gentleman  or 
after  he  had  gone  in  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  189 

A.  I  think  the}'  all  went  in  before  that  gentleman.  I  do  uot-recollect  that  I 
observed  any  go  in  after  that  gentleman  came  ont. 

Q.  Your  attention  had  not  been  drawn  to  that  gentleman  until  he  went  into 
the  saloon  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

By  a  Juror : 

Q.  When  you  went  to  get  those  oysters  to  which  you  refer,  did  you  turn  a 
corner  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  know  whether  it  was  to  the  right  or  left  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  to  the  right  or  left. 

Q.  As  you  proceeded  down  H  street  and  a  party  put  her  head  out  of  a  window, 
could  you  distinguish  the  features  of  the  person  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  could  see  her  plain. 

Q.  Could  you  see  her  features  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  observed  the  features  closely,  I  just  remember  looking 
at  the  lady. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  whether  she  was  white  or  black  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Young  or  old  1 

A.  She  was  not  a  young  lady,  and  I  did  not  think  she  was  an  old  lady ; 
about  middle-aged. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  house  was  she  standing,  the  second  or  third  story  t 

A.  The  second  story.     The  winduw  was  on  a  line  with  the  steps. 

Q.  How  many  stoi'ies  are  there  to  the  house  ? 

A.  I  think  three. 

Q.  And  she  was  on  a  line  with  the  steps ;   did  you  go  up  the  .steps  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  your  companion  go  on  the  steps  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q.  Could  you  see  much  of  her  body  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  very  much. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  whether  she  was  a  stout  lady  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  She  was  a  very  stout-looking  lady. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  When  you  speak  of  the  second  story,  do  you  mean  that  the  steps  landed 
at  the  second  story  ? 

A.  The  second  story ;  yes,  sir. 

Q    Then  the  house  was  what  you  would  call  two  stories  and  a  basement  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  it,  I  think. 

By  Mr.  Bradlky  : 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  whether  she  had  a  cap  on  or  not? 
A    I  do  not  know  whether  I  observed  that  or  not.     1  think  she  had  not. 
Q.  Can  you  recollect   whether  she  had  curls  by  the  side  of  her  head,  or 
whether  she  had  her  hair  brushed  back  ? 

A.  I  think  her  hair  was  plain  combed  back. 

The  court  took  a  recess  till  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock. 

Thlrpdav,  June  20,  1S67. 
The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Mr.  Bradley  moved  that  an  order  be  made    that  Carroll  Hobart,  Charles 

Blinn,  and  Sergeant  Dye  be  recalled,  stating  that  information  had  come  to  the 

'  knowledge  of  the  defence  since  those  witnesses  had  been  examined,  in  reference 

to  which  they  wished  to  further  cross-examine  them  for  the  purpose  of  laying 

the  foundation  for  contradicting  the  testimony  they  had  given. 


190  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

The  court  stated  that  he  could  not  entertain  the  motion  until  proper  affida- 
vits were  presented. 

E.  L  Smoot,  residence  Charles  county,  Maryland,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q    Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  In  Charles  county,  Maryland. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Charles  county,  Maryland  ? 

A.  Since  the  1st  of  January,  1864. 

Q.  I  believe  you  are  a  native  of  Maryland  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  of  Charles  county. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  removing  your  residence  from  Charles  county  to  Prince 
George's  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  fall  of  1864. 

Q.  After  your  marriage  ? 

A.  I  was  married  in  1860. 

Q.  To  what  part  of  Pi'ince  George's  county  did  you  remove  your  residence  1 

A.  About  a  mile  from  Surrattsville. 

Q.  During  what  years  were  you  residing  near  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  1865  and  1866. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  seen  her. 

Q.  State  if  you  know  the  prisoner,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  him  well  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  pretty  well. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  1 

A.  Some  three  or  four  years      I  do  not  recollect  exactly  where  I  first  met  him. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  his  paying  you  a  visit  when  you  were  living  in  Prince 
George's  county  near  Surrattsville,  some  time,  I  think,  in  the  mouth  of*  January 
or  Februf^ry,  previous  to  the  assassination? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  recollect  he  was  at  my  house  on  one  occasion. 

Q    Which  month  was  that  1 

A.  I  disremcmber  now.  I  know  it  was  in  cold  weather — soon  after  I  moved 
there. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  with  you  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  He  went  to  my  house  at  night,  and  went  away  the  next  morning — he  staid 
the  night  there,  that  is  all. 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  at  that  time. 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  was  talking  with  him. 

Q.  State  what  the  conversation  was. 

A.  I  do  not  now  recollect  the  exact  conversation.  We  were  talking  about 
different  things  all  the  while. 

Q.  Go  on  and  state,  if  you  please,  how  he  employed  himself  at  that  time. 

A.  I  saw  him  very  often.  1  was  joking  him  about  his  going  to  Richmond. 
He  never  acknowledged  to  me  that  he  had  been  to  Richmond,  but  laughed  and 
said  :  "  If  the  Yankees  knew  what  he  had  done,  or  what  he  was  doing,  they 
would  stretch  his  neck." 

Q.  Describe  his  manner  when  he  made  use  of  that  remark. 

A.  He  smiled,  and  raised  his  head  up  in  this  way,  (witness  throwing  his  head 
back  in  illustration  of  the  manner,)  and  said  :  "  They  would  stretch  this  old 
neck  of  mine." 

Q.  Wliat  further  did  he  say  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  really  don't  recollect  now  what  took  place  afterwards. 

Q.  I  Avill  ask  you  if  you  did  not  in  those  conversations  speak  to  him  of  going 
to  the  city  of  Richmond  1 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  191 

(Objected  to  on  the  o^round  of  being  leading.     Modified  as  follows :) 

Q.  State  what  he  did  say  in  response  to  anything  you  said  about  his  going 
to  Richmond. 

A.  He  laughed,  but  never  acknowledged  it. 

Q.  I  wish  you  to  state  to  the  jury,  if  you  can,  the  substance  of  what  he 
said,  and  it  will  be  for  us  to  determine  whether  he  acknowledged  it  or  not. 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  now  exactly  what  he  said,  it  has  been  so  long. 

Q.  State  the  substance  if  you  can  ;  if  you  cannot,  say  so. 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  he  deny  that  he  had  been  to  Richmond? 

(Objected  to  as  leading.     Question  withdrawn.) 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  of  anything  that  he  said  at  that  time  ? 

A    No,  sir, 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  unkind  feelings  for  Surratt  ? 

(Objected  to.     Question  withdrawn.) 

Cross-examination  : 
By  Ml-.  Merrick  : 

Q.  When  did  you  move  from  Charles  county  to  Prince  George's? 

A.   In  December,  1864. 

Q.  Did  Surratt  come  to  your  house  on  the  occasion  referred  to  alone  1  ^ 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  was  alone. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  communicate  this  fact  that  you  have  just  stated  to  the 

jury? 

A.  It  was  after  the  assassination, 

Q,  When  did  you  come  to  Washington  city  the  last  time? 

A.  The  other  day. 

Q.  On  last  Sunday? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Were  you  summoned  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  summoned  to  appear  before  the  district  attorney. 

Q.  Did  you  go? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  what  you  have  just  stated  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  To  what  ofiicial  did  you  go  after  talking  with  the  district  attorney  about 
this  matter  ? 

A.  I  was  afterwards  examined  by  Judge  Holt ;  I  did  not  know  his  name ; 
he  told  me  he  was  Judge  Holt  after  I  had  been  examined. 

Q.  Where  was  it  that  you  were  examined  before  him  ? 

A.  Up  at  Winder's  building. 

Q.  Opposite  the  War  Department? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  were  in  the  room  ? 

A.  Judge  Holt  and  another  gentleman;  T  do  not  know  his  name. 

Q.  Was  what  you  said  taken  down  in  writing? 

A,  I  think  so, 

Q.  Were  there  any  other  witnesses  in  this  case  that  you  know  of  up  there  at 
this  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  nine  othei's  went  up  with  me, 

Q,  How  ofien  have  you  been  up  before  Judge  Holt  ? 

A,  Only  once, 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  examination  of  any  of  the  other  witnesses  ? 

A   No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  John  T.  Davis,  from  Charles  county  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


192  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  said  to  Mr.  Davis  or  any  one  else  that  they  had  offered  to 
pay  your  expenses  at  the  hotel  here  and  give  you  some  ten  or  fifteen  dollars  a 
day  if  you  would  testify  ] 

A.  No,  sn-;  I  said  that  a  certain  gentleman  had  told  me  that  he  would 
guarantee  me,  if  I  would  do  what  was  right.  I  asked  him  when  I  got  here  if 
he  had  me  summoned?  He  said  he  did  not  know  anything  about  it.  I  told 
him  I  was  losing  a  good  deal  by  being  up  here.  "  Oh,"  says  he,  "  I  will  see  you  all 
right;  you  will  g«^t  ten  dollars  a  day  if  you  will  do  what  is  right." 

Q.  Who  was  that? 

A.  It  was  Townly  B.  Rodey. 

Q.  Was  he  getting  up  testimony  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know;   I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Q.  Didn't  you  state  that  Townly  Rodey  had  brought  you  a  message  from 
some  official  personage  that  you  would  get  ten  dollars? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  told  me  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Wilson,  and  had  made  it  all 
right. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Have  not  yon  been  to  Mr.  Merrick's  office  since  you  have  been  in  the  city  ? 
A.  I  passed  Mr.  Merrick's  office  yesterday  morning. 
Q.  How  often  have  you  been  to  Mr.  Merrick's  office  ? 
A.  Only  once. 

Q.  Have  not  you  been  talking  with  Mr.  Merrick  on  the  street  about  this  case  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  he  asked  me  some  questions  about  it.     He  said  he  was  after  me 
with  a  sharp  stick,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Jambs  M.  Wright,  recalled: 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Y^ou  have  already  stated  that  you  are  a  chief  clerk  in  the  ofiice  of  the  Judge 
Advocate  General  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  State  what  those  papers  are  that  you  hold  in  your  hand. 

A.  This  is  one  of  the  exhibits  of  the  conspiracy  trials.  It  is  marked  "  Ex- 
hibit No.  63,"  Jacob  Thompson's  account  with  the  Ontario  Bank,  Montreal. 
Tills  piper  is  marked  "Drafts  on  the  Ontario  Bank  for  d£6l  I2s.  lOd."  The 
drafts  are  enclosed  in  this  envelope,  Avhich  is  marked  "Exhibit  37."  This  is 
the  bank  book  of  J.  W.  Booth,  marked  "  Exhibit  11." 

Q.  Those  papers  are  all  exhibits  belonging  to  the  conspiracy  trials,  and  have 
been  in  your  possession  as  chief  clerk  j 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr,  Bradley: 

Q.  Have  you  had  charge  of  those  conspiracy  files  ? 

A.  Y^es,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  among  those  files  a  paper  or  package  marked  "  Diary  of  J.  Wilkes 
Booth  ? " 

A.  It  has  never  been  on  file  with  the  records  of  the  trial  of  the  conspirators. 

Q.  Do  you  know  if  that  diary  has  ever  been  in  your  office  ? 

(Objected  to  by  the  assistant  district  attorney  on  the  ground  that  the  ex- 
amination was  not  responsive  to  anything  that  had  been  brought  out  on  the 
examination  in  chief,  nothing  having  been  said  on  that  examination  about  the 
diary  of  Booth.     Objection  sustained.) 

Robert  Anson  Campbell,  Teller  Ontario  Bank;  residence,  Montreal, 
Canada. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 
Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 
A.  I  am  teller  of  the  Ontario  Bank,  Montreal. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  193 

Q.  How  long  have  3'^ou  been  teller  there  1 

A.  For  some  eight  or  niue  years. 

Q.  You  were  teller  there,  then,  in  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Will  you  examine  this  paper  contained  in  an  envelope  marked  "Exhibit 
No.  63,"  and  state  what  it  is. 

(j\Ir.  Bradley  objected  to  the  introduction  of  any  proof  in  regard  to  Jacob 
Thompson's  accounts  in  Canada  as  being  irrelevant. 

The  Court.  It  is  just  one  of  those  cases  Avhcre  we  have  to  admit  the  testi- 
mony for  the  time  being  ;  but  if  the  prosecution  fail  to  connect  it  in  any  way 
with  the  prisoner,  it  will  be  peremptorily  ruled  out. 

To  this  ruling  Mr  Bradley  reserved  an  exception.) 

Q.  State  what  that  paper  is. 

A.  It  is  the  account  of  Jacob  Thompson  with  the  Ontario  Bank,  Montreal. 

Q.  For  what  time  ? 

A.  Commencing  on  June  28,  1864 — May  20th  really,  for  that  is  when  he 
made  his  first  deposit — and  ending  April  11,  1865.  The  balance  was  then 
struck,  but  the  account  was  not  closer!. 

Q.  What  was  the  balance  then  still  left  to  his  credit  1 

A.  $1,766  2.3. 

Q.  Examine  the  papers  marked  "  Exhibit  37,"  and  state  what  they  are. 

A.  This  is  a  bill  of  exchange  in  favor  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth  for  c£61  12*.  lOi., 
dated  27th  of  October,  1864. 

Q.  Is  that  in  your  account  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  This  is  a  bill  of  exchange  which  I  sold  Mr.  Booth  on  the  27th 
of  October,  1864. 

Q.  That  is  not  in  Thompson's  account  1 

A.  No,  sir;  it  is  a  different  thing. 

Q.  J.  Wilkes  Booth  came  and  bought  a  bill  of  exchange  on  New  York  from 
you? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  it  ? 

A.  27th  of  October,  1864  ;  in  three  sets. 

Q.  Indorsed  and  paid  ? 

A.  Not  indorsed.     It  was  payable  to  Mr.  Booth's  order,  but  I  see  it  is   not 
indorsed. 
•  Q,  Neither  of  the  three  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  They  are  still  outstanding  claims  of  yours  on  the  Bank  of  New  York? 

A.  No,  sir;  it  is  sterling  on  our  agents  in  London. 

Q.  It  has  not  been  paid  yet  ? 

A.  No,  .lir ;  still  outstanding      I  do  not  know  who  will  get  the  monej-. 

]\Ir.  Bradley.  We  will  try  and  get  it.     He  is  one  of  the  parties  to  this  suit. 

Q.  State  what  that  i.< — Exhibit  11. 

A.  Tliis  is  a  pass-book  showing  the  account  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth  with  the 
Ontario  Bank. 

(The  counsel  for  the  prisoner  desired  it  to  be  understood  that  they  objected  to 
the  production  of  each  of  the  three  exhibits;  and  that,  each  said  objection  being 
overruled,  they  reserved  an  exception  to  the  ruling  iu  the  three  cases 
respectively.) 

Q.  State  what  entry  is  in  that. 

A.  It  is  a  deposit  of  S455,  made  October  27,  1864. 

Q.  Deposit  bv  whom  '( 

A.  By  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q,  Is  his  handwriting  there  ? 


lh\  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Oa  the  certificate  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  on  the  certificate  at  all. 

Q.  Will  you  examine  this  account  that  you  first  looked  at,  and  state  what  it 
shows  as  to  deposits  made  on  the  6th  of  April,  and  what  those  pencil-marks 
indicate  in  Thompson's  account  ? 

A.  There  are  three  entries  on  the  6th  of  April — one  for  S7,098 ;  that  is  a 
check. 

Q.   State  what  that  was  on. 

A.  That  was  deposited  in  a  check.  (Afti^r  examination,)  No,  sir,  this  is  not 
a  deposit.  It  is  a  check  drawn.  He  drew  a  check,  which  we  accepted  that 
day,  for  $7,098.  Then  we  gave  him  a  deposit  receipt  for  SlSO.OOO,  for  which 
he  gave  his  check. 

By  Mr.  Pferrkpont  : 

Q.  That  was  a  deposit  with  you  by  a  check? 

A.  We  gave  him  a  deposit  receipt  in  place  of  keeping  this  deposit  in  our 
ledger,  for  which  he  paid  us  by  check,  of  course. 

Q.  What  I  want  to  know  is  how  he  got  it  iu  your  bank — whether  by  bill  or 
check. 

A.  He  deposited  sterling  exchange  on  London. 

Q.  That  $180,000  was  deposited  on  sterling  exchange  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  Having  a  large  amount  to  his  credit,  he  just  drew  this  check  of 
$180,000  against  his  account. 

Q.  What  was  his  balance  on  the  Gth  of  April  ? 

A.  The  papers  don't  show  it.  I  should  say  about  $200,000  before  drawing 
this  check. 

Q.  When  was  this  $180,000  drawn  ? 

A.  On  the  6lh  of  April. 

Q.  And  for  it  you  gave  sterling  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  We  gave  a  deposit  receipt.  He  wanted  that  so  that  he  could 
make  use  of  it  in  a  foreign  country  if  he  wanted  to  go  there  or  anywhere  else. 

Q.  He  gave  a  check  for  the  receipt  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     You  call  them  here.  I  believe,  certificates  of  deposit. 

Q.  What  do  those  pencil-marks  there  indicate  ? 

A.  Those  show  the  amount  of  exchange  he  purchased  on  the  8th  of  April. 

Q.  You  will  observe  there  that  on  the  Gth,  iu  that  second  line,  there  are  some 
pencil-marks  ? 

A.  That  is  "  D.  R.,"  deposit  receipt. 

Cross-examination  : 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  By  whom  were  those  pencil-marks  made  ? 

A.  They  were  made  by  myself. 

Q.  Was  the  account  made  out  by  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir  :  but  I  examined  it. 

Q.  Is  this  pencil  memorandum,  "  Close  order  and  deposit  receipt  and  return," 
in  your  handwriting  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Further  down  is  another  memorandum — pencil  figures  ? 

A.  This  is  a  check  in  favor  of  our  counter  branch  for  a  certain  amount. 

Q.  Is  that  in  your  handwriting  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  those  pencil-marks,  when  they  were 
made,  and  by  whom  ? 

A.  0,  yes,  sir;  made  out  by  the  party  who  made  out  the  account — the 
bookkeeper. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT.  195 

Q    Just  below  there  are  three  or  four  other  entries;  are  they  iu  his  hand- 
writing also  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  This  account  I  see  is  headed  "  Jacob  Thompson,"  which  doesn't  convey 
a  very  definite  idea  as  to  who  Mr.  Thompson  is  1 

A.  He  passed  in  Canada  as  the  Hon.  Jacob  Thompson. 

Q.  From  where  ? 

A,  From  the  United  States. 

John  Lee — residence  near  Vicksburg,  Mississippi — sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  Between  Vicksburg  and  Meridian,  Mississippi.  I  have  been  residing  there 
for  the  last  twelve  months. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  previous  to  emigrating  there  ? 

A.  Here,  in  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  in  Washington  ? 

A.  Somewhere  in  the  latter  part  of  1SG2  I  was  detached  from  my  regiment 
and  brought  here.  .  1  was  detached  from  the  ninety-fifth  New  York  regiment 
and  oi'dered  on  duty  at  the  War  Department,  under  Colonel  Baker. 

Q.  Had  you  resided  in  New  York  before  you  came  to  Washington. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  e«listed  as  a  soldier  in  the  ninety-fifth  New  York  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  1  was  sergeant  of  company  E. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  iu  the  army  "r* 

A.  I  enlisted  for  three  years,  and  was  in  three  years,  lacking  ten  days. 

Q.  In  what  service  were  you  detailed  ?      ^ 

A.  In  the  secret  service,  under  Colonel  Baker,  provost  marshal  of  the  War 
Department. 

Q.  You  were  a  detective  officer  under  Colonel  Baker? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  capacity,  did  you  have  opportunities  of  becoming  acquainted  with 
the  people  here  in  the  city  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  got  more  or  less  acquainted  with  everybody  Avho  lived  here  in 
Washington.  I  was  over  the  streets  every  day,  not  excepting  Sunday,  on  pub- 
lic and  private  business  for  the  departments,  making  arrests,  looking  into  the 
departments,  and  so  on. 

Q    Did  you  know  John  II.  Surratt,  the  prisoner? 

A.  1  knew  John  II.  Surratt  by  sc^eing  him. 

Q.  Look  at  the  prisoner  and  state  if  you  recognize  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  recognize  that  young  man;  but  he  did  not  have  that  "goatee" 
on  when  I  saw  him. 

Q.  State  if  you  saw  him  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865;  and  if  st,  where  you 
saw  him,  and  about  what  time  in  the  day. 

A.  On  the  14tli  April — I  was  at  that  time  with  Major  O'Beirne,  the  provost 
marshal  of  the  District  of  Columbia — I  went  to  the  Washington  depot  with 
reference  to  men  who  were  deserting.  I  was  not  looking  for  des(!rter3  myself, 
but  was  chief  of  the  men  employed  for-  that  purpose  under  Colonel  O'Beirne. 

Q.  What  force  was  that  ? 

A.  The  detective  force  of  the  Provost  Marshal's  department.  I  went  down 
to  the  depot,  and  on  my  way  back,  at  the  corner  of  Sixth  street,  I  stopped  a 
minute  to  answer  a  question — the  man  who  asked  it  I  do  not  know — but  he  in- 
quired about  some  young  fellow  wlio  was  in  my  regiment.  When  I  left  him  I 
continued  on  up  the  avenue,  the  right-hand  side  going  up  towards  Thirteenth 


196  TRIAL    OF    JOHX   H.    SURRATT. 

Street.  When  near  Mr.  Stinemetz's  hat  store  I  passed  a  man  whom  I  took  to 
be  John  H.  Surratt.  He  was  coming  this  way,  and  I  was  going  in  an  opposite 
direction.     It  was  between  Franklin's  spectacle  store  and  Stinemetz's  hat  store. 

Q.  Are  yon  satisfied  the  prisoner  was  that  man  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knoAvledge  that  is  the  man.    (Pointing  to  the  prisoner.) 

Q    Had  you  seen  him  frequently  before  1 

A.  Not  as  frequently  as  I  have  seen  some  people  about  Washington. 

Q.  How  often  had  you  seen  him  ?     Did  you  know  him  well  by  sight  ? 

A.  I  should  suppose  I  had  seen  him  a  dozen  times  before  that. 

Q.  Was  he  walking  rapidly  or  slowly  at  that  time  1 

A.  He  was  going  in  an  oi*diuary  gait.  I  was  going  fast  myself,  walking 
quickly. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if,  on  the  15th — the  next  day — you  were  called  upon  to 
make  any  examination,  or  any  investigation,  into  this  matter? 

A.  I  was.  I  went  to  the  Kirkwood  House.  Major  O'Beirne  got  an  order  to 
bring  all  his  force  to  the  Kirkwood  House  to  protect  Mr.  Johnson.  I  got  an 
order  from  Major  O'Beinie  to  go  up  on  top  of  the  house  to  see  that  nobody  came 
in  from  the  roof.  I  detailed  men  to  all  parts  of  the  house ;  and  then  went  up 
on  the  roof  to  look  around.  I  afterwards  went  down  into  the  clerk's  office,  or 
-book-stand  in  the  office,  when  a  young  man  came  up  to  me.  Getting  certain 
information,  I  went  up  to  room  No.  126,  and  finding  it  locked,  endeavored  to 
get  the  key,  but  it  could  not  be  found.  I  then  got  Mr.  Sprague  to  go  up  stairs 
with  me.  When  we  got  there  I  asked  him  if  we  should  burst  the  door  open. 
He  said  he  did  not  know ;  that  it  might  make  trouble.  I  told  him  that  I  had 
an  idea  that  everything  was  not  right  about  that  room.  1  finallj^  burst  open 
the  door  and  went  in.  Finding  a  pistol,  I  went  down  stairs  to  hunt  for  Major 
O'Beirne  ;  I  found  he  was  in  a  great  hurry  to  go  up  the  street ;  and  so  he  left 
me  to  manage  the  matter  myself.  I  then  took  this  young  man,  Mr.  Jones,  whom 
I  found  in  the  office,  up  stairs  witb  me.  On  the  wall  I  found  a  black  coat  hang- 
ing, in  the  pockets  of  which  was  a  spur,  and  also  a  bank  book  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q.  Look  at  that  book  and  state  if  that  is  it.  (Handing  witness  bank-book 
of  J.  Wilkes  Booth.) 

A.  That  is  the  book. 

Q.  What  else  did  you  get  ? 

A.  It  is  very  difficult  for  me  to  get  at  these  things  as  I  did  before,  because  it 
is  a  long  time  ago,  and  I  have  not  kept  any  notes  whatever. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT,  It  is  not  of  the  least  consequence  that  you  should  state 
them  in  the  same  order. 

WiT.XESS.  I  got  from  the  pockets  also  a  handkerchief,  and  a  half  stick  of 
black  licorice.  I  then  went  to  the  bed,  lifted  the  covering,  and  got,  between 
the  sheet  and  the  mattress,  a  large  bowie-knife,  Avith  a  red  case  ai'ound  it.  I 
then  hunted  the  room  all  over  to  see  if  I  could  find  any  letters  or  papers.  T 
did  not  find  anything  else.  I  took  the  coat,  and  these  things  that  I  had  found, 
and  went  down  stairs  to  the  parlor,  right  next  to  the  Vice-President's  room.  I  kept 
them  until  Major  O'Beirne  came  in.  Major  O'Btirne  picked  them  up  and  car- 
ried them  into  Mr.  Johnson's  room  ;  showed  them  to  him,  and  then  brought 
them  out  and  gave  them  to  me.     I  locked  them  up  at  my  own  house. 

Q.  State  where  Mr.  Johnson's  room  was  witli  reference  to  this  room  from 
which  you  took  these  things  ? 

A.  It  was  on  the  next  floor  above. 

Q.  Which  was  above,  President  Johnson's  room  or  No.  126  ? 

A.  Mv.  Johnson's  room  was  on  the  second  floor  facing 

Q.  On  what  floor  was  this  other  room  ? 

A.  The  third  floor. 

Mr.  PiERRBPO.N'T.  Btrfore  you  go  any  farther  I  want  to  fix  one  thing.  T  un- 
derstand from  my  associate  that  the  witness  said  he  found  this  paper  (holding 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  197 

up  a  piece  of  paper)  iu  this  bank-book.  I  did  not  so  understand  him.  I  want  to 
ascertain  whether  tliat  is  so. 

Q.  Was  this  paper  iu  the  book  at  the  time  you  found  it  ? 

A.  1  never  saw  that  paper  before  now. 

Q.  Go  on  aud  state  what  else  you  did  with  these  things. 

A.  The  next  day  Major  O'Beirne  came  and  gave  me  an  order  to  honk  up  the 
horse  and  wagon  and  take  this  bundle  to  Secretary  Stanton's. 

Q.  "Was  that  the  same  day  ? 

A.  That  was  the  next  day — Sunday.  I  went  and  showed  them  to  Mr.  Stan- 
ton, and  told  him  we  had  showed  them  to  the  President.     He  was  very  angry. 

District  Attorney.  Never  mind  about  that 

Witness.  I  gave  him  the  things  and  he  handed  them  back  to  me.  He  ex- 
amined them  all  carefully  except  the  pistol.  He  didn't  care  to  hiok  at  that. 
He  told  me  to  roll  them  up  and  keep  them  in  my  possession  until  the  military 
commission  tried  the  parties  at  the  arsenal.  I  was  then  sent  for  to  bring  those 
things,  and  I  took  them  up  to  Judge  Holt's  office  and  delivered  them  to  Judge 
Advocate  Burnett. 

Q.  That  was  the  last  you  saw  of  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  until  I  saw  them  in  court.     I  see  some  of  them  here  now. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  them  within  a  day  or  two  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  have  not  seen  them  since  I  left  them  in  possession  of  the  gov- 
ernment. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  of  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

John  Lee  cross-examined : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  you  were  a  detective  officer  in  the  force  of  Colonel  Baker,  in  the 
spring  of  1865,  and  then  in  that  of  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  in  1865. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  under  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  date,  it  was  before  1865,  1  think ;  I  was 
with  Colonel  Baker  before  1865. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  with  Colonel  Baker  1 

A.  A  year  or  more. 

Q.  What  year] 

A.  1863,  I  think,  and  1864. 

Q.  Can  you  come  no  nearer  to  it  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  by  my  memory. 

Q.  That  year  was  embraced  in  the  years  1863  and  1864  ? 

A.  I  left  Aquia  Creek  at  the  tirst  burning  of  the  place  by  General  Burnside. 
I  came  to  Washington  and  went  to  Colonel  Rucker's  office  (now  General  Rucker) 
with  Captain  West,  who  was  post  quartermaster  at  Aquia  Creek.  While  I  was 
there  Colonel  Baker  met  me  and  asked  me  what  I  was  doing.  I  told  him  we 
had  all  left  Aquia  Creek ;  that  Fredericksburg  was  all  gone,  and  that  we  had 
come  to  Washington. 

Q.  I  do  not  desire  you  to  go  over  all  that ;  Avhat  I  wanted  to  know  was  when 
you  left  Colonel  Baker  and  went  with  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  1864. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  year? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  the  exact  time. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  winter,  spring,  or  fall  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  tliat. 

Q    Did  you  go  directly  to  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


198  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURKATT. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  after  you  left  Colonel  Baker? 

A.  I  went  with  Captain  Putnam.  Major  O'Beirne  succeeded  Captain  Put- 
nam, 

Q.  "What  was  Captain  Putnam's  duty  ? 

A.  He  was  captain  of  the  detective  force  in  the  provost  marshal's  office.  I 
got  my  discharge  from  my  regiment  a  few  days  before  T  went  with  him.  The 
Secretary  of  War  gave  me  my  discharge  some  ten  days  before  my  time  was  out 
to  take  an  office,  but  I  did  not  accept  the  office. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  military  service  while  you  were  under  Baker  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  the  United  States  military  service. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  ? 

A.  Sergeant. 

Q.  And  you  then  went  with  Captain  Putnam.     Where  was  his  headquarters  ? 

A.  At  the  corner  of  19th  and  I  streets. 

Q.  State  whether  your  duties  confined  you  very  much  to  that  office,  or  whether 
you  were  much  about  town  while  you  were  with  Captain  Putnam. 

A.  I  was  all  the  time  on  duty  going  about — very  busy. 

Q.  Can  you  state  when  you  went  under  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  Captain  Putnam  resigned  and  Colonel  O'Beirne  took  his  place.     It  might 
be  six  months  before  the  assassination,  and  it  might  be  a  little  more  than  that. 
*     Q.  That  was  in  the  fall  of  1864  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  tell  how  long  you  were  with  Captain  Putnam  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  Captain  Putnam  was  not  there  long  after  I  went  with  him. 

Q.  A  month,  six  weeks,  or  two  months  1 

A.  0  yes,  sir  ;  more  than  that.  I  suppose  I  was  there  with  Captain  Putnam 
about  six  months. 

Q.  And  with  Colonel  O'Beirne  about  six  months,  which  would  make  a  year 
before  the  assassination  1 

A.  About  that  time. 

Q.  And  you  left  Baker  some  time  in  the  spring  of  1864  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell ;  I  do  not  know  the  date  when  I  left  Colonel  Baker.  If  I 
had  my  discharge  I  could  tell. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  Surratt  ? 

A.  The  men  were  sent  round  looking  after  people  who  were  carrying  medi- 
cines through  the  lines.  Sometimes  there  would  be  fifty  notices  and  sometimes 
three  or  four  notices  of  people  running  the  blockade,  carrying  quinine,  mor- 
phine, &c.  There  was  a  good  deal  of  excitement  about  it  among  all  the  men 
on  the  force.  1'hey  were  sent  to  hunt  up  these  men.  Every  now  and  then 
some  one  would  be  pointed  out  as  a  suspicious  person. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  my  question — when  did  you  become  acquainted  with 
Surratt  ? 

A.  It  was  during  this  time.  We  were  looking  after  parties  carrying  quinine 
and  morphine. 

Q.  What  time  was  that? 

A.  The  time  myself  and  the  meu  an-ested  a  man  by  the  name  of  Bay  ley  and 
a  Miss  Buckner. 

Q.  I  want  you  should  tell  about  what  time  it  was. 

A.  I  could  not  tell  without  seeing  Colonel  Baker's  books;  I  cannot  recollect 
the  dates. 

il.  Do  you  rccolh'ct  where  Surratt  was  pointed  out  ? 

A.  The  first  place  he  was  pointed  out  to  mo  was  down  by  the  Baltimore  depot, 
Washington. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  how  many  months  ;  it  was  a  long  time  before  the  assassina- 
tion. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT.  199 

Q.  Was  he  riding,  walking,  or  sitting  ?  Where  was  he  ?  State  whether  any- 
body was  with  him. 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  there  was  or  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  avenue,  and  I  saw  him  on  the  road  going  across  the  East- 
ern Branch  bridge. 

Q.  How  often  1 

A.  Once  or  more  ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  know  where  he  was  living  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  whether  he  belonged  here  or  somewhere  else  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  could  not  say  whether  he  belonged  in  the  city  of  Washington  or 
outside  the  city.  1  had  no  particular  notice  about  him,  more  than  generally  that 
he  was  a  rebel. 

Q.  Was  it  not  your  duty  to  find  out  who  he  was  and  where  he  belonged,  in  or- 
der to  j)revent  him  as  well  as  others  from  going  through  the  lines  ? 

A.  The  same  as  any  other  person  that  there  was  any  suspicion  about. 

Q.  On  that  sort  of  duty  did  you  not  find  out  who  these  people  were,  a  great 
many  of  them  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  AVas  it  not  a  part  of  your  duty  to  find  out  who  they  were,  and  where  they 
belonged  ? 

A.  Some  of  thorn  I  found  out  the  exact  locality.  It  was  our  duty,  if  we  had  a 
special  order  to  that  ellect. 

Q.  When  you  were  informed  that  such  a  person  was  carrying  passengers  or 
medicines  through  the  lines,  was  it  not  your  duty  to  ascertain  who  they  were  and 
where  they  belonged,  without  any  special  orders  ? 

A.  Not  particularly.  We  got  our  orders  through  the  office,  and  when  they 
related  to  any  particular  party,  if  we  could  not  get  names,  we  took  a  description. 

Q.  When  they  were  pointed  out,  was  it  not  a  part  of  your  duty  to  find  out 
where  they  were,  and  mIio  they  were  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  if  there  was  any  special  charge  against  them. 

Q.  The  chai'ge  ag'ainst  Surratt  was  that  he  was  carrying  quinine,  calomel, 
&c.,  to  the  enemy.     Did  you  ever  try  to  find  out  who  John  Surratt  was  1 

A.  No,  sir;   1  did  not. 

Q.  Ordinarily  when  you  saw  him,  was  he  riding  or  walking  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  him  on  horseback  at  all,  nor  in  a  carriage. 

Q.  Then  when  you  saw  him  going  down  towards  the  navy-yard  bridge,  was 
he  on  foot  ] 

A.  Yes,  coming  up  from  the  Eastern  Branch  bridge  on  foot. 

Q.  What  was  his  ordinary  dress? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  you  that. 

Q.  You  could  not  tell  how  a  man  you  were  cautioned  against  was  dressed,  or 
where  he  was  1  icated  1  • 

A.  I  did  not  tell  you  I  was  cautioned  against  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  us  he  was  pointed  out  as  one  of  those  people  suspected 
of  passing  through  the  lines,  and  a  rebel  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  he  was  carrying  anything  through  the  lines. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  he  was  pointed  out  as  a  suspected  person  going  through 
the  lines,  and  a  rebel  if 

A.  I  said  that  he  was  liable  to  be  pointed  out  to  me,  or  to  any  of  the  men,  as 
a  perscfli  suspected. 

Q.  Did  you  say  he  was  liable  to  be  pointed  out  as  a  person  suspected,  or  did 
you  say  he  was  pointed  out  as  a  person  suspected  ? 

A.  I  said  he  was  pointed  out  the  same  as  others  were  to  me,  as  a  suspicious 
man. 


200  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  As  a  suspicious  person  alDOut  going  through  the  lines  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  he  was  pointed  out  to  you  as  a  suspicious  person  1 

A.  Some  of  the  men  said  "  this  man  goes  through  the  lines." 

Q.  Did  you  observe  whether  he  wore  the  same  sort  of  dress  commonly  or 
not,  or  whether  he  changed  his  dress  ;  whether  there  was  any  disguise  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  any  disguise  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  change  of  dress  that  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not. 

Q.  You  could  not  tell  how  he  was  dressed  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  nothing  that  induced  me  to  pay  particular  attention, 

Q.  There  was  nothing  that  induced  you  to  mark  a  man  you  were  on  the  look- 
out for  ? 

A.  1  was  not  on  the  lookout  for  Surratt. 

Q.  You  were  not  on  the  lookout  for  a  man  who  was  suspected  ? 

A.  Not  especially, 

Q.  Were  you  not  on  the  lookout  for  other  men  suspected  of  going  through 
the  lines  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  were  a  great  many  men  pointed  out  that  I  never  paid  any 
particular  attention  to. 

Q.  Then,  did  you  pay  any  attention  to  Surratt? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  he  wore  a  goatee,  whiskers,  or  moustache  at  that 
time? 

A.  I  think  he  had  a  little  heard  on  his  lip ;   I  am  not  positive  about  that. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  anything  about  the  color  of  his  moustache  or  hair  ? 

A.  It  was  the  same  color  it  is  now,  sandy. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  what  it  is  now.  Can  you,  without  looking  at  him, 
from  the  picture  in  your  mind,  say  whether  he  had  a  moustache  or  beard,  and 
what  was  the  color  of  his  hair? 

A.  I  think  he  had  a  little  beard  on  his  upper  lip,  a  moustache,  and  that  it  was 
sandy  in  color. 

O.  Is  that  from  memory  or  from  what  you  see  now  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  is  not  frofn  what  I  see  now  at  all. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  what  notice  you  had  ever  taken  of  him  ? 

A  They  would  go  along  and  say,  "  There  goes  a  rebel ;"  I  would  look  at  him 
so  that  I  would  know  him  again  when  I  saw  him. 

Q.  You  would  know  him  so  well  that,  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  two,  having 
never  exchanged  a  word  with  him,  and  seeing  him  pass  by  in  the  street,  you 
would  say  that  was  him  ? 

A.  I  might  be  mi.^taken  in  that,  too. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  on  the  14th  of  April  in  your  mind  to  direct  your  at- 
tention particularly  to  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  • 

Q,  Did  you  meet  him  ? 

A,  I  passed  him  on  the  street. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell 

Q.  Did  you  turn  around  and  look  at  him  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  "Were  you  examined  before  the  military  commission  in  the  conspiracy 
trial  after  the  assassination  ?  • 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  a  witness  on  that  trial. 

Q.  Did  you,  as  a  witness  on  that  trial,  say  one  word  of  having  seen  John  H. 
Surratt  on  the  14th  of  April  ? 

A,  I  never  was  asked  the  question. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  201 

Q,  Did  not  you  know,  in  your  office  as  detective,  and  especially  in  your  re- 
lation with  the  apprehension  of  the  conspirators,  that  it  was  most  important  to 
find  out  whether  John  H.  Surratt  was  here  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  any  human  being  that  you  had  seen  him  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  did. 

Q,.  Before  you  appi>ared  as  a  witness  on  the  conspiracy  trial,  were  you  ex- 
amined as  to  what  you  knew  by  any  officer  of  the  government  ? 

A.  I  had  some  questions  asked  me  by  a  deputy  judge  advocate. 

Q.  By  whom,  ■\Ir.  Bingham  ? 

A.  Colonel  Burnett,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  that  it  was  of  first  importance  to  find  out  whether 
John  H.  Surratt  was  concerned  in  that  assassination  or  not? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  had  no  thought  about  John  H.  Surratt.  The  only  man  I  had 
special  thought  about  was  Atzerodt. 

Q.  When  did  you  ever  think  of  John  H.  Surratt  as  connected  with  it  I 

A.  I  heard  general  talk  about  the  complicity  of  John  H.  Surratt,  but  I  had 
nothing  to  do  with  him ;  my  whole  business  was  after  Atzerodt. 

Q.  Was  not  your  business  to  find  out  every  man  connected  with  the  assas- 
sination 1 

A.  My  whole  time  was  taken  up  with  Atzerodt. 

Q.  Was  it  not  your  business  to  communicate  all  the  information  you  had 
upon  the  subject  relating  to  any  man  charged  with  that  conspiracy  ? 

A.  It  was  my  business  to  find  out  anything  against  him. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  that  John  Surratt  was  charged  as  one  of  the  con- 
spirators ? 

A.  I  heard  it  said  so. 

Q.  Was  it  not  a  common  subject  of  conversation  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  was. 

Q.  Was  there  not  evidence  about  him  on  the  trial  ? 

A.  No  question  was  ever  put  to  me. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  you  on  the  trial  about  Surratt  i 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  communicate,  then,  to  any  human  being  about  your  having 
seen  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  I  told  any  one  of  having'  seen  Surratt  until  I  was 
brought  here,  at  this  time. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell  then  ? 

A.  I  told  one  or  two  of  my  friends  or  acquaintances. 

Q.  Who  else  did  you  tell  besides  a  friend  or  two  of  yours  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  told  anybody  else. 

Q.  Were  you  not  interrogated  as  to  what  you  could  prove  on  the  trial  by  an 
officer  of  the  government  ? 

A.  Here  ?     No,  sir 

Q.  You  were  not  examined  by  the  district  attorney,  or  anybody  else,  here'? 

A.  I  simply  said  to  him,  "  How  do  you  do,  sir;"  and  I  spoke  to  one  of  the 
other  counsel  and  asked  him  who  I  was  a  witness  for. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  anybody  connected  with  the  government  about  your  hav- 
ing seen  John  H.  Surratt  on  the  14th  of  April,  at  anytime  since  you  have  been 
here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  1  did. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell  ? 

A.  I  told  the  district  attorney. 

Q.  I  thought  you  did  not  tell  the  district  attorney  ? 

14 


202  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  told  Mr.  Wilson, 

Q.  I  asked  you  if  you  did  not  tell  the  district  attorney  and  you  said  •'  No." 
Now  you  correct  yourself. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.\T.  0,  no  ;  he  did  not  correct  himself. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  am  speaking  to  the  witness.  If  you 
LaAC  any  objection,  make  it  to  the  court. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  object. 

The  Court.  Go  on  with  the  cross-examination. 

Q.  Now  I  ask  you,  did  you  not  tell  the  district  attorney  about  this  1 

A.  May -be  I  can  give  you  the  exact  words.  He  asked  me  if  I  was  acquainted 
with  Surratt.  I  told  him  "  Yes."  He  asked  me  if  I  was  well  acquainted  with 
him.  I  told  him  "  No,  only  by  sight."  He  then  asked  nie  when  1  last  saw  him. 
I  told  him,  "  On  the  14th  of  April." 

Answer  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  endeavored  to  stop  him  from  stating  his  conversation.  I 
merely  wanted  to  know  whether  he  did  not  communicate  to  the  district  attorney 
about  his  having  seen  Surratt. 

Mr.  PiERREPOM'.  We  do  not  object  to  that. 

Q.  Now  I  want  to  know  who  else  you  told  it  to  besides  the  district  attorney. 

A.  Mr.  W^ilson. 

Q.  Who  else? 

A.  I  think  I  told  it  to  Mr.  Butler. 

Q.  What  Butler  ? 

A.  Ferdinand  Butler. 

Q.  Who  else? 

A.  I  may  have  made  a  remark  out  in  the  witness-room. 

Q.  1  mean  before  you  came  to  the  court-house  at  all  ? 

A.  I  did  not  speak  to  anybody  before  I  came  to  the  court-house. 

Q.  W^hen  did  you  come  to  the  court-house  ? 

A.  I  came  here  on  Sunday  morning. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  tell  anybody,  except  the  district  attorney,  what  you 
knew  about  this  matter,  unless  you  spoke  to  Mr.  Butler  about  it. 

A.  I  may  have  spoken  to  two  or  three  persons  about  it. 

Q.  Who  else  do  you  recollect  except  Mr.  Bntler  ? 

A.  I  recollect,  I  think,  Mr.  Tucker. 

Q.  What  Tucker  ? 

A.  He  lives  at  Mr.  Butler's,  I  believe. 

Q.  When  did  you  tell  him  about  it? 

A.  I  think  it  was  yesterday. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  recollect  anybody  else  ? 

A.  Nobody,  that  I  recollect  now. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  of  it  to  any  one  who  wrote  it  down  or  made  a  note  of  what 
you  said  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge.  T  did  not  see  anybody  writing.  It  may  have  been 
done  behind  me. 

By  a  Juror : 

Q.  The  first  time  you  saw  Surratt,  who  pointed  him  out  ? 

A.  Some  one  of  the  men  of  the  force.  I  do  not  know  who  it  was.  These 
things  would  happen  sometimes  a  dozen  times  a  day.  It  is  the  peculiar  busi- 
ness of  the  men  to  go  about  all  the  time.  They  do  not  know  sometimes  who 
they  are  looking  for,  and  it  is  a  common  thing,  for  them  to  remark,  seeing  a 
person  pas?,  that  is  so  and  so. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  203 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  date  when  you  first  saw  him? 
A.   No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradlev  : 

Q.  "What  time  in  the  day  was  it  that  you  overtook  Surratt  on  the  avenue? 
A.   I  think,  as  near  as  I  can  tell,  it  was  between  3  and  5  o'clock.     I  wanted 
to  get  up  to  the  office. 

Q.  And  you  were  walking  rapidly  past  him? 

A.  Going  at  my  ordinary  gait. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  you  were  walking  fost  ? 

A.  I  always  walk  fast. 

Q.  You  were  walking  fast  and  he  was  walking  slow? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  was  between  3  and  4  o'clock,  as  well  as  you  recollect  ? 

A.  Between  3  and  5. 

By  a  Juror : 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  he  was  going  down  ? 

A.  I  was  going  on  the  right-hand  side  of  the  street.     He  was  on  the  left- 
hand  side  of  the  pavement,  near  the  curb. 

Q.  Then  you  met  him;  you  did  not  pass  him  ? 

A.  I  passed  him  on  the.  sidewalk.     He  was  going  the  other  way  from  what 
I  was. 

Q,  You  said  you  were  walking  rajjidly  and  he  was  walking  slowly.    How  fast 
was  he  walkinsc  ? 

A.  He  was  walking  ordinarily  along  ;  not  so  fast  as  I  did. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  the  time  when  you  first  saw  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  do  not. 

Sa.muei.  a.  Raixey  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrbpont: 

Q.  Where  do  you  live? 

A.  In  "Washington.     I  have  lived  in  Washington  about  twenty  years. 

Q.  Whaf  is  your  business  ? 

A.  My  business  for  the  last  twelve  or  fourteen  yeai'S   has  been  dealing  in 
horses  and  keeping  a  livery  stable. 

Q.  Where  has  been  your  livery  stable  the  last  four  or  five  years  ? 

A.  On  Sixth  street. 

Q.  In  the  same  place  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   in  two  different  places. 

Q.  State  where  it  was  from  tlie  1st  of  January  to  the  1st  of  June,  ISG-^i, 

A.  It  was  on  Sixth  street,  south  of  the  avenue.     I  did  not  keep  the  stable  at 
that  timp.     I  was  there,  and  kept  my  horses  there  occasionally. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  take  an  interest  in  the  stable  ? 

WiT.VKSS-.  Which  one? 

^[r.  riERREPOMT.  Either. 

A.   I  could  not  say  exactly  the  date. 

Q.  It  was  as  early  as  January,  1864  ? 

A.  It  might  be.     I  am  not  |iositive.     I  have  been   in  business  all  the  time ; 
but  I  am  not  positive,  from  the  fact  tliat  I  never  kept  any  account  of  it. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  about  its  being  in  January,  1864? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  had  the  stal)le  in  1864 

Q.  AVben  did  you  first  have  an  interest  in  any  stable? 

A.  I  have  had  an  interest  in  stables  for  the  last  twelve  years. 

Q.  When  in  '64,  and  in  what  stable  were  you  interested  ? 


204  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  was  keeping  a  stable  at  tte  corner  of  Sixth  and  0  streets,  and  was 
buying  and  selling  some  horses. 

Q.  When  did  you  take  this  stable  you  occupied  in  1865;  when  was  it  first 
opened  by  you  ? 

A.  I  took  it  the  1st  of  January,  1865,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

Q,  Who  took  it  with  you  ? 

A.  Dr.  Cleaver ;  his  name  is  William  E.  Cleaver. 

Q.  Was  he  a  veterinary  surgeon  1 

A.  Yes,  sii-. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  and  Cleaver  continue  together  in  that  business  ? 

A..  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  some  eight  or  nine  mouths ;  not  quite  a 
year. 

Q.  He  and  you,  from  the  1st  of  January  to  the  1st  of  June,  were  partners  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  equal  partners  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  the  books  of  the  firm  1 

A.  They  were  kept  by  Dr.  Cleaver.  My  health  was  bad  during  that  year. 
I  was  very  little  at  the  stable  ;  and  it  is  bad  still.  I  was  there  off  and  on,  but 
not  regularly. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth? 

A.  Only  by  name.     I  was  not  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Did  he  come  to  your  stable,  and  did  you  see  him  there  two  or  three  times  ] 

A.  I  remember  seeing  him  there  once  or  tAvice ;  once  that  I  remember. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  know  what  Surratt  came  there  for  ;  if  so,  state. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  is  customary  for  men  coming  there  to  have  business, 
generally. 

Q.  What  was  his  business  ? 

A.  Surratt  came  thei-e  on  one  occasion  to  get  a  horse. 

Q,  At  what  time  was  that  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember.     My  partner  hired  the  horse. 

Q.  You  saw  him  there  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  there. 

Q.  Have  you  any  memory  of  what  kind  of  a  horse  that  was  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  ray  recollection  it  was  a  bay  mare. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  time  in  January  it  was,  or  whether  it  was  in 
January  1 

A.  1  do  not. 

Q.  Was  it  in  January  or  February  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  It  was  after  the  1st  of  January? 

A.  It  was  after  the  1st  of  January,  for  we  did  not  take   the  stable  until  the 
1st  of  January. 

Q.  You  say  your  partner  kept  the  books ;  look  at  the  books  now  shown  you 
and  state  whether  these  are  the  books  of  the  firm  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  these  books  have  been  used  at  the  stable. 
Q.  Whose  handwriting  are  they  in  ? 

A.  Dr.  Cleaver's,  principally. 

William  E.  Cleaver  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 
Q.  Are  you  the  Dr.  Cleaver  Avho  kept  a  livery  stable  in   1865  on   Sixth 
street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Near  what  place  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SUREATT.  205 

A.  Near  the  corner  of  Maryland  avemie ;  between  B  street  and  Maryland 
avenue. 

Q.  When  did  yon  commence  there? 

A.  In  January,  ISGo. 

Q,  Who  kept  the  books  of  the  firm  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  was  your  partner,  if  yon  had  any  ? 

A.  Mr.  Rainey. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  on  the  stand  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  was  not  here. 

Q.  Samuel  A.  Rainey,  was  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  lately  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  1  saw  him  in  the  witnesses'  room  just  now. 

Q.  How  lono^  did  he  and  you  continue  as  partners  ? 

A.  About  eighteen  months. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  then? 

A.  Livery  stable  and  veterinary  surgeon. 

Q.   How  long  had  you  been  a  veterinary  surgeon  ? 

A.  Seventeen  years  in  this  city. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  ? 

A.  About  seventeen  years. 

Q.  Were  you  educated  as  a  veterinary  surgeon  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  1865,  or  prior  to  1865,  did  you  keep  any  other  stable  in  any  other 
place  1 

A.  Yes  ;   I  kept  a  stable  on  B  street. 

Q.  Did  you  know  J.  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  About  twelve  years,  I  think — ten  or  twelve  years. 

Q.  Have  you  had  a  speaking  acquaintance  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  mode  in  which  yon  addressed  him  and  he  addressed  you  ? 

A.  He  came  down  to  hire  a  horse  of  me  at  the  time  Booth  kept  his  horse 
with  me. 

Q.  What  did  you  caII  him  and  what  did  he  call  you  ? 

A.  I  usually  called  him  "John,"  and  he  called  me  "  Doc." 

Q.  When  did  Booth  first  bring  his  horse  to  you  to  keep  ? 

A.  The  Ist  of  January,  1865 — the  day  we  got  the  stable. 

Q.  And  to  that  stable  on  Sixth  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wliat  was  the  health  of  your  partner  at  this  time  ? 

A.  He  is  sickly  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  on  earth  has  all  this  to  do  with  this  case? 

The  Court.  I  cannot  see  its  relevancy. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  think  your  honor  will  see  some  relevancy  before  we  are 
through.     It  is  a  single  fact  proven  by  itself. 

Q.  State  what  horse  Booth  brought. 

A.  He  brought  a  one-eyed  bay  horse  first. 

Q.  What  next  ? 

A.  About  ten  days  afterwards  he  brought  a  light  bay  horse,  very  light  bay. 

Q.  Did  he  bring  any  others  ? 


206  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  this  ? 

A.  In  January,  1865.     I  think  you  will  find  it  in  the  book  there. 

Q.  State  whether  you  saw  him  and  Surratt  there  together. 

A.  Yes  sir. 

Q.  What  were  they  there  together  about  ?     What  did  they  say  and  do  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  the  first  time,  I  hired  a  horse  to  them. 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  as  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  conspiracy. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  they  would  connect  it  with  the  conspiracy. 

Question  allowed  by  the  court,  to  be  ruled  out  if  not  connected  subsequently.) 

A.  The  first  time  I  saw  Surratt  there  with  Booth,  Booth  came,  I  think,  and 
paid  one  or  two  weeks'  livery.  Then,  three  or  four  days  after,  he  came  down 
and  I  hired  him  a  horse  to  go  into  the  country. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Hired  to  whom? 

A.  To  Surratt.  He  came  and  hired  a  horse  two  or  three  times.  The  next 
time,  Booth  and  Sam.  Arnold  came  there  together. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  must  object  to  that.  Sam.  Arnold  is  not  named  in  the  in- 
dictment. 

The  District  Attorney.  Your  honor  will  remember  that  the  count  in  the 
indictment  refers  to  "divers  persons  to  the  jurors  unknown." 

The  Court.  If  you  show  that  Arnold  was  connected  with  the  conspiracy, 
the  evidence  will  be  proper. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  all  we  desire. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  understand  that  we  shall  show  that. 

A.  The  last  time  Surratt  came  there  and  hired  a  horse  he  came  there  about 
three  or  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  When  was  that? 

A.  That  was  the  25th  of  January,  186^. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time,  when  he  had  met  Booth  there,  had  he  any  conver- 
sation with  him  ? 

A.  He  always  came  with  bim,  except  on  this  occasion. 

Q.  On  this  occasion,  who  did  he  come  with  ? 

A.  Nobody.     He  came  alone. 

Q.  He  hired  a  horse  1  * 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  ordered  me  to  have  Booth's  horse  ready  by  seven  o'clock 
that  evening — this  bay  mare. 

Q.  What  time  was  it  that  he  got  there  1 

A.  About  seven  o'clock  that  evening.  It  was  raining  very  hard.  He  came 
about  three  and  ordered  them. 

Q.  When  he  came  at  seven,  what  occurred  ? 

A.  He  came  there;  I  was  standing  in  the  gangway.  It  was  raining  very 
hard.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  going  to  the  country  such  a  night  as  that.  He 
said  yes,  he  was  going  down  to  T  B  to  a  dance  party.  I  told  him  it  would 
have  to  be  a  fine  dance  party  that  would  take  me  down  there  such  a  night  as  that. 
I  asked  him  if  he  would  go  over  to  the  Clarendon  and  get  a  drink.  He  said  he 
thought  he  had  had  enough  then.     I  thought  so  too. 

Q.  Did  Booth  come? 

A.  He  had  not  come  yet ;  I  asked  Surratt  into  the  ofiice  to  sit  down. 

Q.  Did  he  come  in? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  came  in  and  sat  there  some  few  minutes.  He  told  me  he  was 
going  down  in  the  country  to  T  B,  to  meet  a  party  and  help  them  across  the  river  ; 
that  he  and  Booth  had  some  bloody  work  to  do ;   that  they  were  going  to  kill 

Abe  Lincoln,  the  d d  old  scoundrel ;  that  he  had  ruined  Maryland  and  the 

country.     He  said  that  if  nobody  did  it,  he  would  do  it  himself,  and  pulled  out 
a  pistol  and  laid  it  on  the  desk. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHX    H.    SURRATT.  207 

Q,  Was  anything  said  on  this  occasion  as  to  what  he  represented? 
A.  He  said  he  represented  two  counties  in  Maryland. 
Q.  State  whether  the  rain  continued  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  very  hard. 
Q.  Did  Booth  come  1 
A.  He  came  about  8  o'clock. 

Q.  State  whether  there  was  any  conversation  afterward  between  Booth  and 
Surratt  1 

A.  Mr.  Surratt  chastised  him  for  being  so  late — for  keeping  him  waiting  so 

long. 

Q.  "Will  you  explain  what  you  mean  by  the  word  "chastise"  1 

A.  I  think  he  was  going  to  hit  him  in  the  face  with  a  glove  or  something  of 
that  kind — in  joke,  of  course.  He  either  hit  at  him,  or  hit  him,  I  do  not  know 
which. 

Q.  Jokingly? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  simply  wanted  to  know  whether  you  nsed  the  word  "chastise"  in  the 
ordinary  meaning  of  it,  or  whether  you  meant  to  chide — find  fault  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  to  find  fault. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Washington  on  the  day  of  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  distinct  memory  of  what  you  did  on  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  were  riding  or  walking  ? 

A.  I  was  doing  both  that  day  ;  I  was  pretty  busy  ;  I  was  driving  a  black  horse 
that  day  to  exercise  him. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  1 

A.  I  started  out  about  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  went  down  to  the  Navy  Yard  first,  and  then  doAvn  to  the  congressional 
burying  ground. 

Q.  Wlien  you  came  back,  what  street  did  you  come  1 

A.  I  went  around  by  the  Bladensburg  toll-gate,  and  came  in  H  street. 

Q.  Did  you  come  in  late  or  early  ? 

A.  I  got  to  the  stable,  I  reckon,  at  four  o'clock,  or  a  little  after  four. 

Q.  Before  you  got  to  the  stable,  when  you  came  down  H  street,  did  you  meet 
anybody  that  attracted  your  attention  1 

A.  1  met  a  great  many. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  any  one  in  particular  that  attracted  your  attention  1 

A.  I  met  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  'J'he  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii\ 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  very  well  ? 

A.  1  have  known  hini  a  good  long  while — T  think  I  ought  to  know  him. 

Q.  Was  anybody  riding  with  you  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Y'es,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  person  living  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  How  was  Surratt  moving  when  you  met  him,  on  horseback  or  on  foot  ? 
A.  He  was  on  horseback. 
Q.  What  kind  of  a  horse  was  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  the  horse  much  ;  I  think  it  was  a  chestnut-sorrel,  a  rather 
darkish  horse. 

Q.  Is  chestnut-sorrel  a  dark  color  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


208  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q    State  whether  you  spoke  to  him? 

A.  1  spoke  to  him  and  said  "How  are  you,  John  ?"    He  uodded  to  me ;  I  do 
not  know  whether  he  spoke  or  not;  I  was  jogging  along  at  a  pretty  good  gait. 
Q.  He  bowed  to  you,  and  you  said,  ''How  are  you,  John?" 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bkadlev: 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  ? 

A.  He  had  on  a  kind  of  rusty  colored  coat :  he  had  a  muffler  around  his  neck, 
something  like  a  lady's  victorine. 

Q.  What  did  he  have  on  his  head  ? 

A.  He  had  on  something  like  a  jockey  cap  crown. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  abovit  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  that  you  met  him 
down  Sixth  street  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  on  H  street,  between  the  Printing  Office  and  the  railroad,  as  near 
as  I  can  judge. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  before  the  military  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  Did  you  state  any  single  one  of  the  facts  you  have  stated  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  asked  ;  I  was  only  asked  about  Booth  keeping  horses 
in  my  place. 

Q.  You  have  seen  your  examination  ? 

A.  1  have  seen  it  since  it  was  printed. 

Q.  You  have  not  seen  it  lately,  have  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  have  not. 

Q.  Yuu  say  you  are  a  veterinary  surgeon ;  did  you  use  to  train  horses  and 
break  horses  also  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  sometimes. 

Q.  When  you  were  before  the  military  commission  were  you  asked  about 
John  H.  Surratt  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  you  will  find  a  word  in  that  book  in  my  exami- 
nation about  him. 

Q.  Did  not  you,  at  that  military  commission,  say  that  John  H.  Surratt  was  at 
your  stable  in  the  January  previous,  with  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  not  your  attention  called  then  to  John  H.  Surratt? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  you  asked  me  if  I  was  asked  about  him. 

Q.  No  ;  I  asked  you  if  you  stated  any  single  fact  before  that  military  com- 
mission that  you  stated  to-day  ? 

A.  Then  I  misunderstood  you.  I  thought  it  was  whether  they  asked  me 
any  question  about  Surratt.     They  just  called  me  to  ask  about  Booth's  horses. 

Q.  Then  you  did  state  that  John  H.  Surratt  came  there  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  I  told  them  too  about  Arnold's  buying  a  horse. 

Q.  Have  you  told  to-day  about  Arnold  buying  a  horse  ? 

A.  I  have  not  been  asked  it. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  stated  anything  about  John  H.  Surratt  there  that  you 
have  stated  to-day  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  only  in  regard  to  hiring  a  horse. 

Q.  Were  you  not  examined  by  an  officer  of  the  government  before  you  were 
called  to  testify  as  a  Avitness  at  the  arsenal  ? 

A.  Colonel  Burnett  called  me  out  into  the  witness  room.  I  told  Mr.  Cotting- 
ham,  the  man  that  summoned  me,  that  I  would  give  him  $,5  to  get  me  off;  that 
I  had  some  horses  to  ship  at  Georgetown.  Mr.  Cottingham  went  and  fetched 
Colonel  Burnett  out.  He  asked  what  I  knew.  I  was  going  ou  to  state. 
He  said  he  did  not  want  to  hear  about  that ;  that  1  could  come  the  next  day 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  209 

I  came,  and  told  about  Sui-ratt's  hiring  a  horse.  They  sent  me  to  17th  street 
to  identify  the  horse  Booth  kept  with  me. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  that  the  great  point  of  inquiry  wa?,  who  was  concerned 
in  the  murder  of  the  President;  and  did  not  you  know  that  John  II.  Surratt 
was  charged  as  being  one  of  the  parties  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  tell  what  you  have  told  the  jury  here  to-day  1 

A.  T  was  not  asked  about  it. 

Q.  You  were  asked  Avhat  you  knew  about  Booth  and  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  1  was  not  asked  about  Surratt.  I  told  about  Surratt's  hiring  the 
horse  on  my  own  motion. 

Q.  Why  did  you  tell  that  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  they  asked  me  about  horses  and  I  told  them  about  Sur- 
ratt. They  may  probably  have  asked  me  if  Surratt  did  not  hire  a  horse  from 
me.     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  You  stated  that  you  were  not  asked  about  Surratt  at  that  time,  but  what 
you  stated  about  him  was  of  your  own  accord  ] 

A.  I  might ;  I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  or  not. 

Q.  Why  did  not  you  tell  at  that  time  all  you  have  told  the  jury  to-day? 

A.  I  was  very  glad  to  get  off  the  stand  and  get  away  from  the  place. 

Q.  Yet  you  did  tell  them  about  Surratt  being  at  your  stable  with  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  I  told  them.     I  do  not  think  I  was  asked  it. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  whether  you  told  them  anything  at  all  of  what  you  have 
stated  Iiere  to-day  l 

A.  I  did  not  tell  them  anything  about  the  conversation  with  Surratt  I  have 
stated. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  them  you  saw  John  H.  Surratt  in  this  city  on  the  afternoon 
of  the  14th,  the  day  of  the  murder  1 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  it  was  of  importance  to  find  out  whether  John  H.  Sur- 
ratt was  concerned  in  the  murder  or  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  why  did  you  not  tell  them  what  you  knew  ? 

A.  I  was  well  acijuaiuted  with  Surratt  and  inclined  to  shield  him. 

Q.  Yet  you  told  them  that  he  was  with  Booth  at  your  stable ;  that  he  was 
there  using  Booth's  horse  ;  and  you  told  them  that  without  being  asked  ? 

A.  I  told  them  about  hiring  a  horse  to  go  down  to  the  dance  pai'ty. 

Q.  You  told  them  about  Booth's  going,  and  about  that  little  passage  between 
Booth  and  Suiratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  them  about  Surratt  being  tight  that  night ;  that  he  had  too 
much  on  board  already  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  was  scarcely  on  the  stand  five  minutes,  or  two  minutes. 

Q.  In  that  two  minutes  or  five  minvites  you  told  them  these  things  without 
being  asked  1 

A.  I  told  them  all  they  asked  me. 

Q.  But  they  did  not  ask  you  about  Surratt  being  there,  and  yet  you  told 
them  ? 

A.  I  think  they  asked  if  anybody  used  Booth's  horses  besides  himself,  and 
that  I  told  them  he  let  Surratt  use  his  horses  ;  and  I  think  they  might  have 
asked  whether  Surratt  hired  horses.  I  think  it  probable  they  did,  but  1  do  not 
know. 

Q.  Then  you  think  it  is  possible  that  they  might  have  asked  you  about  Sur- 
ratt ? 

A.  I  think  so  ;  I  do  not  know. 


210  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  You  think  you  did  not  volunteer  to  state  it  of  yom*  own  accord? 

A.  I  do  not  know  Avliether  I  did  or  not,  it  is  so  long  ago. 

Q.  Did  not  you  tell  us  at  first  that  you  were  not  asked  questions,  but  that  you 
told  all  this  without  being  asked  1 

A.  I  told  you  at  first  that  I  did  not  tell  them  anything  about  the  conversa- 
tion between  Mrs.  Surratt  and  myself. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  take  a  horse  from  me  to  break  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Did  you  sell  that  horse  while  in  your  custody  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  pay  me  the  money  for  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  took  him  and  sold  him  without  my  authority  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  my  authority  for  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  swear  to  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

(Examination  objected  to  by  district  attorney.) 

Q.  Are  you  the  same  Dr.  Cleaver  indicted,  tried,  and  convicted  in  this  term  ? 

(Objected  to  by  district  attorney  ) 

The  Court.  The  question  may  be  asked;  it  will  be  for  the  witness  to  say 
whether  he  will  answer  it. 

Q.  I  ask  whether  you  are  the  same  Dr.  Cleaver  who  was  indicted,  tried,  and 
convicted  for  rape  upon  a  poor  little  girl  in  this  city,  and  whether  you  have  not 
obtained  an  order  for  a  new  trial  1 

Witness.  I  cannot  answer  that  question. 

The  Court  suggested  that  it  would  be  better  to  bring  in  the  record  of  bis 
conviction  if  such  is  the  fact. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  had  the  right  to  ask  the  question,  and  the  witness  would 
answer  or  not,  as  he  pleased. 

The  District  Attorney  denied  his  right  to  ask  the  question. 

Q.  Where  have  you  been  for  the  last  month  or  two  ? 

A.  In  the  city. 

Q.  Where  in  the  city  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Will  your  honor  inform  the  witness  whether  he  is  obliged  to 
answer  the  question  or  not  ?     He  declines  to  answer  it. 

Witness,  I  stated  that  I  had  been  in  the  city. 

Q.  Where  in  the  city  ? 

A.  In  different  places, 

Q.  In  what  different  places  ? 

A.  I  have  been  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  Then  you  have  not  been  in  this  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  I  have  been  in  this  city. 

Q.  Where  have  you  been  for  the  last  three  weeks  1 

A.  I  cannot  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  hope  the  court  will  instruct  the  witness  that  he  must  answer 
the  question. 

The  Court.  The  question  may  be  put,  and  if  the  witness  does  not  choose  to 
answer  it  he  may  decline  to  answer  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Can  he  decline  to  answer  it  unless  he  states  that  it  would  tend 
to  criminate  him  ] 

The  Court.  Criminate  or  degrade  him. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   IT.    SURRATT.  211 

After  a  statement  made  by  the  witness  privately,  the  court  statefl  he  was  sat- 
isfied the  witness  had  a  right  to  decline  to  answer  the  question. 

Q.  Have  you  recently  seen  a  man  by  the  name  of  Sanford  Oonover,  other- 
wise known  as  Dunham  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  daily  intercourse  with  him  ? 

A.  Sometimes  I  have. 

Q.  In  this  city  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  him  about  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  told  him  all  1  knew  about  it  two  or  three  months  ago. 

Q.  Did  he  write  down  what  you  told  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  that  I  know  of — not  in  my  presence.  He  is  a  man  I  very 
seldom  spoke  to. 

Q  Yet  you  were  in  daily  intercourse  with  him,  and  told  him  all  about  this 
case? 

A.  I  may  have  been  in  his  company. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  tell  him  about  this  matter? 

A.  We  were  talking  about  Surratt's  trial,  and  I  got  to  telling  him  about  Sur- 
ratt's  hiring  a  horse  of  me. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Sanford  Couover  the  same  things  you  have  told  in  court 
to-day  1 

A.  Pretty  much  the  same. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  was  it  you  saw  Sanford  Conover  ? 

A.  I  decline  to  state  where  it  was.     I  believe  it  was  on  4th  street  somewhere. 

Q.  Was  it  on  the  corner  of  the  street  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Near  the  corner  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Jus  t  round  the  corner  from  Gr  street,  on  the  left-hand  side  of  Fourth  street 
as  you  go  up  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  that  where  you  have  been  staying  for  the  last  two  or  three  weeks  ? 

Mr.  PiKRREPONT.  1  ask  the  court  to  instruct  the  witness  as  to  his  right  to 
answer. 

The  Court.  I  have  done  so. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  Sanford  Conover  is  the  first  man  to  whom  you 
told  the  things  you  have  stated  in  court  to-day. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  AVho  else  ? 

A.  A  young  man  who  was  keeping  stable  for  me  by  the  name  of  Charley 
Lewis.  I  told  him  of  the  conversation  they  had  after  they  went  down  the 
country  together. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Charley  Lewis  you  saw  Surratt  in  this  city  on  the  14th  of 
April,  1865  ] 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  Y'ou  do  not  know  ? 

A.  No ;  I  saw  a  great  many  people  in  18G5  that  I  did  not  tell  him  about. 

Q.  Are  there  a  great  many  people  in  the  city  of  Washington  that  you  know 
anything  about,  charged  with  complicity  in  this  murder  ] 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  where  Charley  Lewis  is  ? 


212  TKIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

A.  ISTo,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  is  it  since  you  have  seen  him  1 

A.  About  a  year  and  a  half. 

Q.  Where  did  he  belong  ? 

A.  In  Connecticut. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  went  when  he  left  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  he  went  away  in  a  hurry  from  me. 

Q.  How  long  after  this  conspiracy  trial  did  he  go  away  1 

A.  Three  or  four  months,  or  four  or  five  months  ;  I  cannot  state  exactly  the 
time. 

Q  I  want  to  know  the  first  person  to  whom  you  told  that  you  saw  John  H. 
Surratt  on  the  14th  of  April. 

A.  I  may  have  told  a  great  many — I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  told  it  to  anybody  before  you  told  it  to  San- 
ford  Conover  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  at  large  in  the  city  when  Surratt  was  arrested  1 

A.  No,  sir;  I  was  in  the  city. 

Q.  Have  you  not  been  examined  in  a  civil  suit  in  this  city  since  John  H. 
Surratt  was  arrested  1 

A.  No  ;  it  was  a  few  days  before. 

Q.  Before  he  was  brought  here  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  sure  about  that? 

A.  I  know  it,  sir. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time,  had  you  told  anybody  of  this  thing  1 

A.  I  might ;  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Can  you  not  tell  when  you  first  spoke  of  a  fact  so  important  to  the  life  of 
a  man  as  this  1 

A.  I  did  not  think  it  important  at  the  time  I  met  him. 

Q.  And  you  carried  the  secret  for  how  long  a  time  ? 

A.  I  did  not  think  it  a  secret  at  the  time  I  met  him. 

Q.  I  do  not  speak  of  the  time  you  met  him.  Daring  the  conspiracy  trials 
you  knew  it  was  an  important  fact  to  ascertain  whether  he  Avas  in  the  city  on 
that  day  or  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  should  not  have  told  it  now  if  it  had  not  been  for  Conovei". 
He  soon  told  som'-body,  and  the  first  thing  1  knew,  somebody  came  to  the  jail 
to  see  me.     I  got  very  mad  at  Conover.     I  told  him  I  did  not  want  to  answer 
the  question. 
,   Q.  Did  you  say  it  was  in  the  jail  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  came  to  see  you? 

A.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Ashley,  a  stoutish  gentleman.  I  asked  him,  and  he 
told  me  how  he  came  to  know  of  it.  I  would  not  answer  the  question  until  he 
told  me  who  had  told  him  of  it.  I  knew  I  had  not  said  it  to  anybody  but  Con- 
over.    When  I  went  back  I  never  spoke  to  him  for  six  or  seven  days. 

Q.  Then   you  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Ashley  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  about  all  these  things  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  else  did  you  fail  to  tell  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  tell  him  a  great  many  things  ;  I  never  told  him  of  the  sale  of 
Booth's  horse  to  Arnold. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Ashley  write  down  what  you  said  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT.  213 

Q.  Did  lie  have  paper  when  he  came  in  1 

A.  Not  that  1  know  of;  I  never  saw  any. 

Q.  Was  he  in  Sanford  Conover's  company? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  him  in  Sanford  Conover's  company  at  other  times? 

A.  I  never  saw  him  in  his  company  in  my  life. 

By  Mr.  Pibrrepont. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  about  the  sale  of  a  horse  to  Arnold.  What  was 
that  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  have  not  asked  that. 

Mr.  PiBRRKPONT.  It  came  out  in  some  way  in  cross-examination. 

The  court  ruled  that  the  question  might  be  asked. 

A.  Booth  came  down  to  the  stable  on  the  27th  or  28th  of  January  and  paid 
his  livery ;  I  think  to  the  26th.  Then  he  came  about  the  27th  or  28th  and 
paid  his  livery  up  to  February  1,  and  Sam.  Arnold  in  company  with  him.  He 
then  told  me,  in  Arnold's  presence,  that  he  had  sold  the  horse  to  Arnold,  and 
that  Arnold  was  to  pay  the  livery  from  that  time  on. 

Q.  Now,  about  Booth's  order  you  spoke  about,  what  did  that  mean  ? 

(Question  objected  to  as  not  relating  to  what  was  brought  out  on  the  examination 
in  chief.     Objection  sustained.) 

By  j\[r.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Who  was  the  IMr.  Ashley  who  called  on  you  at  the  jail  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  him  only  by  that  name.  I  believe  he  is  a  member  of  Con- 
gress.    I  never  saw  him  before  in  my  life. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  looking  man  is  he  ? 

A.  A  stoutish  man. 

Q.  Did  you  understand  he  was  a  member  of  Congress  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  told  me  who  he  was. 

Q.  Have  you  received  any  offer  of  favor  or  reward  for  the  testimony  you  have 
given  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  have  not,  from  anybody. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sui-e  of  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  have  not,  from  anybody. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  And  we  understand  you  to  say  you  had  no  idea  of  revealing  this  ? 
A.  I  did  not ;  I  told  it  to  Conover  confidentially. 

Mr.  Eddy  Martin  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  State  your  residence  and  occupation. 

A.  I  reside  in  New  York.     I  am  a  commercial  broker. 

Q.  In  the  year  18G5,  did  you  go  down  to  Port  Tobacco  from  the  city  of 
Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  state  briefly  what  occurred  there,  and  what  you  saw  connected  di- 
rectly with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

A.  I  went  to  Richmond,  and  I  will  state  the  circumstances  under  wliicli  I 
went,  if  you  will  permit  me.  In  the  fall  of  1SG4  a  gentleman  Avcnt  to  Rich- 
mond and  consulted  with  the  confederate  authorities  there  in  regard  to  the  dis- 
position of  the  entire  cotton  crop  of  the  south.  On  his  return,  in  company  with 
some  persons,  personal  and  political  friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  he  called  to  see  Mr. 
Lincoln,  and  had  a  consultation  with  him  in  reference  to  it. 


214  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

Q.  Were  you  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  have  seen  the  affidavits  of  the  parties. 

Q.  Then  you  need  not  go  into  anything  in  regard  to  that — growing  out  of 
that.     You  went  down  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  it  will  take  me  but  a  moment  to  state  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances under  which  I  went.  I  think  it  is  my  right  to  do  so.  I  think  you 
promised  it  to  me. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  have  no  objection,  if  it  is  legitimate. 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  is  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  defence. 

Witness.  Mr.  Lincoln  expressed  a  desire  to  see  this  thing  consummated. 
He  suggested  a  certain  course  to  be  pursued,  in  which  our  government  should 
not  be  directly  connected  with  it.  The  confederate  government  wanted  to  treat 
directly  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  objected  to  that;  he  said  he  would  not  recog- 
nize them  and  he  would  not  treat  with  them,  but  that  if  these  gentlemen,  or  any 
association  of  individuals,  could  enter  into  arrangements  to  purchase  the  cotton 
and  tobacco  in  the  south,  he  would  guarantee  them  the  protection  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  afford  them  every  facility  for  carrying  out  that  arrangement.  At 
the  close  of  the  interview  these  gentlemen  asked  for  a  pass  to  return  south,  and 
consummate  the  affair.  Mr.  Lincoln  said  he  would  rather  not  give  a  pass ;  but 
that  they  had  been  there  once,  and  he  guessed  they  could  go  again.  In  the 
mouth  of  December  these  parties  came  and  laid  the  facts  before  me  ;  asked  me 
to  take  hold  of  the  business,  and  prosecute  it  to  its  consummation.  After  con- 
sideration, I  agreed  to  do  so,  believing  I  acted  with  the  tacit  consent  of  the 
President,  if  not  his  full  approval. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  And  the  reason  you  asked  to  make  this  statement  was  iu 
order  to  show  that  you  were  there  legitimately  ? 

A.  That  is  precisely  the  reason.     By  the  time  I  got  there 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  That  is  sufficient  to  show  your  reason.  Now  please  state 
what  occurred. 

Witness.  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  complete  this  explanation.  Judge  Pierre- 
pont  promised  me  I  should. 

The  Court,  As  it  will  probably  take  less  time  for  the  witness  to  complete 
his  statement  than  to  argue  the  question,  I  think  he  had  better  be  allowed  to 
go  on. 

WiTNE.'^s.  I  went  to  Richmond;  but  so  long  a  time  had  elapsed  after  the 
original  proposition,  that  they  declined  to  carry  it  out  as  first  proposed,  but  ex- 
pressed a  desire  that  1  should  purchase  cotton  freely,  which  I  did  to  the  extent 
of  about  S6, 000, 000,  and  obtained  the  refusal  of  about  815,000,000  worth  more. 
1  came  back  to  Washington,  and  reported  promptly  what  I  had  done.  There 
was  nothing  criminal  or  irregular  in  it.  It  was  done  with  the  tacit  consent  of  the 
President. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  reason  of  your  going? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  go  on  and  state  what  relates  to  this  subject. 

A.  While  in  Port  Tobacco,  I  remained  for  ten  days,  in  order  to  get  an  oppor- 
tunity to  cross  the  river.  I  employed  a  man  by  the  name  of  Andrew  Atzerodt, 
and  paid  him  to  make  some  arrangements  for  me  to  cross  ihe  river. 

Q.  Was  that  his  lull  name? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;   he  went  by  that  name. 

Q.  Was  his  name  George  A.  1 

A.  I  presume  so ;   he  went  by  the  name  of  Andrew. 

Q.  There  was  no  doubt  about  the  other  name  being  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  think  not.  I  heard  his  name,  and  recollect  asking  him  once  if  it  W!i,s  a 
Russian  name.     He  tried  to  make  arrangements  for  me  to  cross,  and  went  down 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  215 

the  liver  several  times.     I  paid  him  for  his  trouble,  aucl  finally  abauiloned  the 
idea  and  left  there.     1  did  not  cross  there  at  all. 

Q.  What  time  was  that  ? 

A.  A'oout  the  10th  of  January,  1865;  from  the  7th  to  the  15th. 

Q.  Who  else  did  you  see  there  connected  with  this  conspiracy  ? 

A.  I  saw  Suriatt  there  on  one  occasion. 

Q.  Tell  what  you  know  about  it ;  Avliat  was  said  or  done. 

A.  I  had  110  particular  conversation  with  him.  I  was  introduced  to  him.  He 
did  not  refer  to  his  business,  and  I  do  not  think  I  did  to  mine.  On  one  evening 
after  dark  a  man  told  me  that  a  party  was  just  about  to  cross  over.  1  said  I 
would  like  to  be  introduced  to  him.  He  said  he  would  do  so.  In  probably 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  he  came  in  and  said  he  was  mistaken;  that  they  were 
not  going  to  cross.  During  the  evening  I  was  introduced  to  Surratt.  No  par- 
ticular conversation  passed  between  us.  I  may  have  told  him  I  was  going  to 
cross  the  rivei'.  I  think  1  did.  I  remained  that  night.  The  next  day  when 
he  came  in  to  supper  he  had  on  his  leggins.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  going.  He 
said  he  was  going  back  to  Washington ;  that  he  was  employed  in  Adams's  ex- 
press office  ;  that  he  had  three  days'  leave  of  absence ;  that  his  t^me  was  nearly 
expired,  and  that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  start  back  that  night. 

Q.  State  whether  you  saw  he  and  Atzerodt  speak  together. 

A.  I  am  not  positive  whether  I  saw  them  speak  at  all  with  each  other. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  after  that  day  ? 

A.  1  did  not  see  him  after  this  conversation  at  the  supper  table,  and  have  not 
seen  him  since  till  I  saw  liim  here. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Atzerodt  afterwards  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  remained  two  or  three  days  and  tried  to  get  across.  I  saw 
him  there  all  the  time  I  was  there. 

(4.  Did  you  see  him  on  the  other  side  ? 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  you  see  either  of  them  on  the  other  side  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  or  heard  of  either  of  them  on  the  other  side. 

Q.  Did  you  see  either  of  them  at  any  other  place,  at  any  other  time,  that  yoii 
remember  of  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  Payne? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Herold  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  had  other  conversation  with  Atzerodt,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  did  the  night  tSurratt  left  there.  I  was  losing  confidence  in  Atzerodt. 
I  thought,  although  I  had  been  paying  him  tolerably  liberally,  thai  he  had  been 
throwing  off  on  me.  I  staid  up  pretty  late  tliat  night.  He  came  to  the  hotel 
about  11  o'clock.  I  accused  him  of  intending  to  cross  over  that  night  with  other 
partie.-i ;  told  him  I  had  been  paying  him  all  that  he  askcl,  and  that  I  must 
cross  by  the  first  boat.  He  denied  that  anybody  was  going  to  cross  that  night. 
1  reiterated  the  charge  1  had  made  of  duplicity  upon  his  part.  He  then  made 
this  explanation  :  He  said  no  one  was  going  to  cross  that  night,  but  on 
Wednesday  night  a  large  party  would  cross  of  ten  or  twelve  persons  ;  that  he 
had  been  engaged  that  day  in  buying  boats  ;  that  they  were  going  to  have 
relays  of  horses  on  the  road  between  Port  Tobacco  and  Washington.  Said  I, 
"What  does  this  mean?"  He  said  he  could  not  tell.  Alter  a  moment  I  said 
I  supposed  that  confederate  officers  were  to  escapt'  from  prison,  and  that  he  had 
made  arrangements  to  cross  them  over  into  Virginia.  He  said  "  Ves,  and  I  am 
going  to  get  well  paid  for  it." 

Q.  When  you  asked  him  first  what  it  was,  he  did  not  tell  you  ? 


216  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Xo ;  he  said  he  did  not  know,  or  something. 

Q.  But  when  you  made  this  suggestiou  he  agreed  to  it  ? 

A.  Yes ;  he  assented  to  it  in  a  moment. 

Brooks  Stabler  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  What  was  your  occupation  from  the  first  day  of  January  until  the  first 
day  of  June,  1865? 

A.  I  was  in  a  livery  stable ;  taking  charge  of  a  livery  stable. 

Q.  Whose  stable  was  it  ? 

A.  John  C.  Howard,  on  G  street,  between  6th  and  7th. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  number  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  H.  Surratt  1 

A.  I  did.     . 

Q.  Did  you  know  George  A.  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  at  your  stable  ? 

A.  Frequently. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  all  together  there  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  them  togethei",  and  sepaiately. 

Q.  What  did  you  see  them  doing  ] 

A.  They  were  talking,  sometimes. 

Q.  Talking  together  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  when  you  first  saw  John  Wilkes  Booth  at  your  stable,  as  near  as 
you  can  remember. 

A.  I  cannot  remember  exactly  the  time;  it  was  about  the  time  Surratt  entered 
his  horses  at  that  stable  in  my  care. 

Q.  When  did  Surratt  put  his  horses  at  that  stable  in  your  care  ? 

A.  That,  I  think,  is  stated  in  my  testimony  on  the  other  trial ;  I  do  not  re- 
collect it  now, 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  it  was  about  February,  lS6o  ? 

A.  It  was  along  about  that  period. 

Q.  In  what  manner  did  Surratt  put  his  horses  in  your  charge  ? 

A.  He  left  them  there  to  be  taken  care  of — to  be  fed  and  watered. 

Q.  How  many  were  there  1 

A.  Two. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  these  two  horses  ? 

A  They  were  both  bay  horses.  One  was  an  ordinary  horse ;  the  other  was 
a  rather  fine  horse — saddle  horses. 

Q.  Were  both  horses,  or  one  a  mare  1 

A.  Both  horses. 

Q.  What  was  the  direction  he  gave  you  about  them  ? 

A.  His  direction  was  that  he  wanted  them  taken  care  of  in  the  best  maimer  I 
could. 

Q.  In  i-efereuce  to  their  use,  what  did  he  direct  ? 

A.  That  they  were  not  to  be  used  except  by  his  order. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  order  about  their  use  ? 

A.  He  gave  me  an  order  on  one  occasioa  for  Booth  to  use  them  ? 

Q.  What  did  lie  say  in  giving  t4iat  order  ? 

A.  His  directions  were  that  Booth  and  no  one  else  was  to  have  his  horses,  but 
that  Booth  could  get  them  at  any  time. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   II.    SUKRATT.  217 

Q.  Booth  could  get  either  horse  at  any  time;  he  did  not  mention  any  one  1 
A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did ;  Booth  usually  got  one  horse. 
Q.  Which  one  ? 
A.  The  better  one, 

Q.  Wlien  these  men  came,  did  they  come  together  or  separately  ? 
A.  Sometimes  two  of  them  would  come,  and  I  believe  all  ihree  of  them  have 
come  together. 

Q.  How  was  it  generally,  did  they  all  come  together  or  separately  ? 

A.  There  w^ere  generally  two  of  them. 

Q.  HoAv  often  in  the  course  of  a  day  were  they  there  sometimes  ? 

A.  Two  or  three  times  a  day  sometimes. 

Q.  Did  yon  see  Atzerodt  ride  out  with  Surratt  on  any  occasion  ? 

A.  I  did  on  one  occasion. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  written  order  from  Surratt. 

A.  I  had  one. 

Q.  Have  you  it  with  you  1 

A.  I  think  I  have;  (paper  produced.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  brought  this  note  1 

A.  I  did  not  know  the  gentleman 

Q.  It  was  brought  by  a  gentleman  was  it? 

A.  I  never  saw  him  before  or  since. 

Q.  You  know  the  handwriting  ? 

A.  It  is  Surratt's  handwriting. 

Mr.  PiERREPoxT  read  the  note  as  follows  : 

"  March  26,  1865. 
"Mr.  Brooks  :  As  business  will  detain  me  for  a  few  days  in  the  country  I 
thought  I  would  send  your  team  back.  Mr.  Bearer  will  deliver  in  safety  and 
pay  the  hire  on  it.  If  Mr.  Booth,  my  friend,  should  want  my  horses,  let  him 
have  them,  but  no  one  else.  If  you  should  want  any  money  on  them,  he  will  let 
you  have  it.  I  should  have  liked  to  have  kept  the  team  for  several  days,  but 
it  is  too  expensive,  especially  as  I  have  women  on  the  brain  and  may  be  away 
for  a  week  or  so. 

"  Yours,  respectfully, 

-J.  HARRISON  SURRATT." 

Q.  "Will  you  state  what  team  this  alludes  to  1 

A.  The  team  I  hired  to  him. 

Q.  "What  team  was  it  1 

A.  A  horse  and  buggy. 

Q.  This  was  on  the  26th  of  March ;  how  long  prior  to  that  did  you  let  him 
have  the  team  ? 

A.  The  day  before,  perhaps  ;  I  could  tell  by  reference  to  my  books. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  was  going  with  it  1  and  if  so,  where  ? 

A.  I  think  not ;  I  do  not  think  I  knew  where  he  was  going  then. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  Surratt  ride  out  with  from  your  stable  with  any  of  the 
horses  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  ride  out  with  Booth,  and  I  have  seen  him  ride  out  with 
Atzerodt. 

Q.  Did  you  receive  any  other  note  from  John  II.  Surratt '( 

A.  Not  that  1  recollect  of  now. 

Q.  I  allude  to  the  one  produced  on  a  former  trial  ? 

A.  I  may  have  received  several. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mrs.  Surratt  sending  a  note  to  you  ? 

A.  Sending  an  order  for  a  horse  and  buggy. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  ride  out  on  that  order  sent  by  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 
15 


2,18  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Merrick,  "We  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  sucli  note. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  1  supposed  the  note  was  here  ;  I  beheve  it  is  attached  to 
the  record  of  the  military  commission.  I  will  therefore  waive  that  question 
until  it  is  here. 

Q.  Please  state  whether  in  the  spring  of  1865,  or  in  April,  1865,  you  had  any 
conversation  with  Atzerodt  about  Surratt  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  As  that  conversation,  I  presume,  is  the  same  as  that  stated  in 
the  book  containing  the  assassination  trial,  I  will  ask  the  court  to  examine  it 
and  determine  whether  it  can  properly  be  admitted  in  evidence  or  not. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiXT.  I  suppose  the  statement  there  is  substantially  what  the  wit- 
ness will  say. 

Pending  the  decision  of  the  question,  the  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow 
at  10  a.  m. 

Friday,  June  21,  1867. 
The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Mr.  Merrick  presented  to  the  court  affidavits  of  the  prisoner,  asking  that  the 
witnesses  Carroll  T.  Hobart,  Charles  H.  Blinn,  and  Sergeant  Joseph  M.  Dye  be 
recalled. 

After  examining  the  affidavits,  Judge  Fisher  said  that  he  had  carefully  noted 
their  contents,  and  had  also  considered  the  arguments  submitted  by  counsel  yes- 
terday. His  views  were  that  the  custom  which  had  always  prevailed  was  cor- 
rect ;  that  a  witness  should  consider  himself  discharged  after  examination, 
unless  told  to  remain.     He  thought  it  better  to  pursue  the  common  practice. 

Mr.  IMerrick  desired  to  know  if  the  witness  could  be  cross  examined  if  brought 
here  by  the  defence. 

The  Court  said  that  he  could  be  examined  as  a  witness  for  the  defence. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  he  understood  counsel  on  the  other  side  to  agree  that  if  the 
witnesses  were  here  they  could  be  cross  examined. 

The  Court  said  that  that  was  a  subject  for  agreement  between  counsel. 

Mr.  Merrick  inquired  if  he  understood  the  court  right,  that  the  bail  bond  of 
Dye  could  be  offered  in  evidence. 

The  Court  said  that  that  was  a  subject  for  future  consideration.  He  had 
only  remarked  that  that  was  the  way  to  prove  it. 

Edward  L.  SiMOOT,  recalled.     Examination  resumed. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  made  any  erroneous  statement,  or  whether  you 
made  any  mistake  in  your  testimony  of  yesterday,  which  you  desire  to  correct? 

A.  I  have  been  told  since  I  got  off  the  stand  yesterday  that  I  was  mistaken 
as  to  the  gentleman  who  examined  me  up  at  Winder's  building.  I  said  yesterday, 
in  reply  to  a  question  put  by  ^Ir.  ]\Ierrick,  that  I  was  there  examined  by  two 
gentlemen — one  a  young  gentleman  and  the  other  an  old  one.  He  then  asked 
me  their  names.  I  told  him  I  did  not  know  the  name  of  either,  but  that  I  heard 
after  I  left  the  room  that  the  elderly  gentleman  was  Judge  Holt.  J-«ome  of  the 
witnesses  avIio  went  up  there  with  me  told  me  that  the  older  gentleman  of  the 
two  was  Judge  Holt.     I  never  saw  Judge  Holt  in  my  life  to  know  him. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Just  describe  the  gentleman  who  examined  you. 

A.  The  gentleman  was  sitting  down  at  the  time,  and  did  not  get  up  at  all. 
I  was  questioned  first  by  the  young  gentleman,  I  saw  him  this  morning,  and 
he  tells  me  his  name  is  Colonel  Barr.     They  both  questioned  me. 

Q.  Describe  the  old  gentleman. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  219 

Mr.  PlERREPON'T.  I  submit  to  your  honor  whether  that  is  a  proper  question. 

The  Court.  I  will  say  that  I  supposed  there  would  be  some  end  to  this 
matter  of  inquiring  as  to  who  has  examined  witnesses.  It  is  altogether  wrong. 
It  is  a  needless  waste  of  time ;  and  I  here  take  occasion  to  say,  that  if  any 
government  officer  did  not  use  due  diligence,  in  an  important  trial,  to  find  out 
what  he  could  prove  by  witnesses,  he  would  be  very  derelict  in  his  duty.  If 
I  were  a  public  officer  prosecuting  causes,  I  should  feel  it  my  duty,  i)i  every 
important  case,  to  see  and  examine  the  witnesses;  and  a  lawyer  who  does  not 
do  so,  in  my  estimation — I  may  be  wrong — does  not  do  his  duty  to  his  client. 

Mr.  PiKKREPONT  said  it  was  the  duty  of  the  government  to  prosecute  crime, 
and  find  out  who  committed  it.  If  a  govei'ument  could  not  prutect  its  citizens, 
such  government  could  not  protect  itself. 

Mr.  Bradley  thought  the  government  had  abundant  means  in  the  judicial 
department,  without  bringing  in  extraneous  aid  from  any  other  branch  of  the 
government,  to  seek  out  and  to  bring  to  punishment  criminals.  He  thought  it 
the  duty  of  every  citizen  to  communicate  any  facts;  but  he  solemnly  protested 
against  any  secret  tribunal  to  investigate  proof,  and  probably  to  create  proof. 
He  agreed  that  as  to  matters  connected  with  the  army  Mr.  Holt  had  authority ; 
but  he  denied  that  Mr.  Holt,  or  the  War  Department,  had  a  right  to  investigate 
matters  as  to  private  citizens.  There  was  a  great  difference  between  now  and 
three  years  ago,  Avhen  a  great  struggle  was  going  on  in  the  country.  Under 
what  law  did  Mr.  Holt  undertake  to  examine  into  a  case  pending  in  a  civil 
tribunal  ?  If  there  was  such  authority,  he  called  for  the  statute.  Judge  Holt 
was  a  private  citizen.  The  prosecution  must  show  some  authority  for  Mr.  Holt's 
investigating  matters. 

Mr.  3Iekrick  said  it  must  be  shown  that  the  party  examining  was  a  duly 
authorized  attorney  of  the  United  States. 

The  Court  said  they  could  proceed  with  the  examination  of  the  witnesses; 
that  it  was  proper  to  ask  a  witness  who  he  had  spoken  to  concerning  the  testi- 
mony he  would  give,  with  a  view  of  showing  that  he  had  said  on  another  occa- 
sion something  different  from  what  he  had  said  on  the  present  one.  He  only 
desired  to  intimate  to  counsel  that  a  great  deal  of  time  was  taken  xip  in  examin- 
ing into  matters  of  this  sort,  where  there  did  not  appear  to  be  any  point  in  the 
question. 

]\[r.  Bradley  stated  that,  whenever  the  court  required  it,  they  would  always 
disclose  the  object  of  their  question  ;  but  he  would  submit  that,  on  cross- 
examination,  it  had  the  effect  to  cut  the  throat  of  the  examination,  to  be  called 
upon  to  make  known  the  object,  of  the  question. 

Examination  resumed  by  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Describe  the  elderly  gentleman. 

A.  He  was  sitting  down  at  the  time  he  was  examining  me,  and  I  couldn't  tell 
whether  he  was  a  very  tall  man,  or  not.  He  was  an  old  gentleman,  however  ; 
his  hair  was  gray.     It  was  not  white,  but  it  was  a  silvery  gray. 

Q.  Was  it  long  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  was  rather  long,  tolerably  so.  He  had  a  little  gray  beard  just 
on  his  jaw. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  remarkable  about  his  face  that  you  observed  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him  full  in  the  face.  I  was  sitting  just  between  the  two 
gentli  men.     I  saw  his  side  face  only. 

Q.  Did  he  have  a  heavy,  large  head? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  it  particularly. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  his  nose  ? 

A.  Not  particularly. 


220  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT.  • 

Q.  In  what  room  were  yo^^  examined? 

A.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  while  in  the  passage-way,  looking  round,  I  saw  over 
the  door  the  words,  "Judge  Advocate  General's  office." 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  please,  I  think  it  proper  for  me  to 
state  that  the  Judge  Advocate  General  is  not  examining  witnesses  in  this  case; 
not  assisting  us  at  all. 

Mr.  Bradley  (to  the  court.)  If  so,  let  him  state  it  under  oath. 

Brooke  Stagler.     Examination  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo\t  : 

Q.  Yesterday  you  produced  this  letter  of  March  26,  1865,  from  Mrs.  Surratt* 
Tell  us  what  that  team  was  that  came  back  with  this  letter  1 

A.  It  was  a  horse  and  buggy. 

Q.  Were  there  two  horses  1 

A.  There  was  one  horse  and  buggy. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object.     That  was  all  brought  out  yesterday. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  It  was,  and  I  am  coming  to  that.  I  think  he  was  mistaken 
about  the  team. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  color  of  the  team  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  they  were  gray  or  white  horses  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  of  his  having  a  double  team  but  once,  and  I  do  not  think 
that  was  the  time. 

Q.  What  was  the  double  team] 

A.  I  cannot  put  them  together  now. 

Q.  Can  you  state  what  color  the  double  team  was  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  you  had  a  team  of  white  hoises,  or  gray,  at  that 
time  ? 

A.  I  had  one  that  was  sometimes  put  double — rarely  two  grays  together. 

Q.  Were  you  accustomed  to  speak  of  a  single  horse  as  a  team  ? 

A.  O,  yes  ;  that  was  a  common  thing. 

Q.  Will  you  name  the  persons  you  saw  at  your  stable  conversing  together 
with  Surratt  ] 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object.     That  all  came  out  yesterday. 

Mr.  PiKRREPOXT.  He  may  not  have  stated  them  all.  Name  the  persons,  if 
you  please. 

A.  I  have  seen  Booth,  Atzerodt,  and  Herold, 

Q.  With  whom  ? 

A.  With  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  you  omit  any  name  yesterday  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Herold's  name  was  omitted  yesterday. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  either  of  those  men  in  relation  to 
Surratt's  trip  anywhere;  and  if  so,  what  was  it  ? 

A.  I  had  with  Atzerodt. 

Q.  State  what  it  was. 

A.  He  showed  me  the  conclusion  of  a  letter  which  he  had  received  from 
Surratt,  stating 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  that. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  You  can  state  what  Atzerodt  said.     What  did  be  say  ? 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  had  a  letter  in  his  hand  from  Surratt,  but  that  he  would 
not  let  me  see  it  all.     He  opened  it,  and  the  concluding  paragraph  I  read. 

Q.  What  further  did  he  say? 

A.  He  said  that  in  that  letter 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  thought  you  said  that  you  read  that  part  of  the  letter. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  221 

Mr.  PlERBEPONT.  I  am  not  asking  liira  as  to  what  he  read,  but  as  to  what 
Atzerodt  said  to  him  regarding  the  contents  of  that  letter.  He  has  a  right  to 
tell  lis  what  Atzerodt  said  to  him. 

The  Court.  Whatever  Atzerodt  said  is  testimony,  whether  he  said  it  was 
in  the  letter  or  not.  His  saying  so  and  so  was  in  the  letter  would  not  put  it 
there ;  nor  his  saying  so  and  so  was  not  there  would  not  take  it  away  if  it  was 
there.     The  object,  as  I  understand  it,  is  to  get  at  the  conversation. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.XT.  AVill  you  state  what  he  said  ? 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  would  not  show  me  the  letter — the  body  of  it — but 
that  he  would  show  me  the  latter  part  of  it.  He  stated  that  the  letter  was  dated 
In  Richmond,  and  that  he  had  understood  that  the  detectives  were  after  him,  and 
he  was  making  his  way  north  as  fost  as  he  could.  That  is  about  the  amount  of 
what  Atzerodt  told  me. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  further  ? 

A.  Nothing  more  than  a  reiteration  of  the  same.  He  said  it  over  two  or 
three  times.     He  positively  refused  to  show  me  any  more  of  the  letter  than  that. 

Q.  Did  he,  at  the  time  of  this  conversation,  state  where  Surratt  then  was  1 

Mv.  Bradley.  If  your  honor  pleases,  I  think  it  is  time  to  interpose  an  ob- 
jection to  this  line  of  examination.  The  witness  has  stated  that  Atzerodt  showed 
to  him  a  letter  which  he  said  was  dated  at  Richmond,  and  which  contained  what 
the  witness  has  repeated.  To  follow  it  up  looks  very  much  to  me  like  a  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  have  a  right,  I  suppose,  to  call  his  attention  to  specific 
matters,  such,  for  instance,  as  to  inquire  whether  he  stated  where   Surratt  was  ? 

The  Court.  You  have  a  right  to  put  such  questions  as  will  have  the  effect 
to  refresh  his  memory,  but  not  to  put  them  in  such  a  form  as  to  render  them 
leading. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  will  then  make  the  question  more  general. 

Q.  Will  you  state  how  the  conversation  between  you  and  Atzerodt  com- 
menced ? 

A.  lie  called  me  out  on  the  edge  of  the  pavement  and  told  me  what  he  had. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  1 

A.  Nothing  more  than  to  let  me  see  the  letter, 

Q.  And  when  he  declined  to  do  so,  what  did  you  say  further,  if  anything  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  saying  anything  particular. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  said  as  to  where  Surratt  was  at  the  time  of  this  con- 
versation 1     If  so,  what  was  it  ? 

A.  There  is  nothing  on  my  mind  now  that  I  can  recall.  I  do  not  think  there 
was  any  impression  made  on  my  mind  that  would  lead  me  to  say  where  he  was. 
He  did  not  say. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  that  explained  to  you  what  he  meant  by  making  his 
way  north — north  from  what  point  ? 

A.  North  from  Richinond. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  more  to  you  in  relation  to  the  difficulty  that  Surratt 
was  in  ?   and  if  so,  what  ? 

A.  That  is  the  only  difficulty  that  he  spoke  of — about  detectives. 

Q.  Did  he  name  to  you  whose  detectives  they  were — ^\-hether  they  were 
Colonel  Baker's,  or  any  other  squad  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  they  were  Colonel  Baker's,  or  whose  they  were 
— government  detectives. 

Q.  He  did  not  name  whose  particular  squad  that  you  remember  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  did. 

Q.  You  say  government  detectives — detectives  of  Avhat  government  ? 

A.  Government  of  the  United  States. 


222  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Do  you  mean  Atzerodt  said  United  States  detectives,  or  was  that  your  in- 
ference from  what  he  said  ? 

A.  I  mean  that  he  told  me  that  the  detectives  were  after  him. 

Q.  And  you  understood  they  were  government  detectives  ;  but  I  do  not  un- 
derstand you  to  say  that  he  told  you  they  were  government  detectives  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  said  government  detectives,  but  that  is  what  he 
meant. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  Preceding  that,  did  you  have  any  conversation  in  relation  to  the  payment 
of  any  bill  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Conversation  with  whom? 

]\rr.  PiERREPONT.  Why,  with  eitber  of  those  parties?  To  the  witness.  I  do  not 
mean  to  ask  you  with  regard  to  anybod}'^  else,  except  some  one  of  those  that  you 
have  mentioned  ?  ^ 

A.  I  think  I  had  a  letter  from  Surratt,  telling  me,  in  his  absence,  to  call  upon 
Booth. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Wait  a  moment.     Where  is  that  letter  1 

Mr.  Pierrepoxt.  I  have  not  yet  asked  the  witness  about  the  letter.  I  am 
going  to,  but  I  do  not  choose  to  interrogate  him  about  it  at  this  point. 

Q.  I  ask  you  what  conversation  you  had  in  March,  at  the  stable,  if  any  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  particularize  anything.  There  was  frequent  talk 
about  our  money  matters.  Surratt  woiild  frequently  ask  me  if  I  wanted  any  money. 

Q..  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  time  when  Atzerodt  took  away  a  blind 
horse,  if  any  such  thing  ever  occurred.     Do  you  remember  of  any  such  thing  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  About  when  was  it  tbat  he  took  away  the  blind  horse  1 

A.  As  to  the  time,  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  abont  the  time  1 

A.  No,  sir,  I  cannot. 

Q.  Blind  of  one  eye,  I  understand  this  horse  was  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  horse  was  it  1 

A.  It  was  a  saddle  horse — a  fine  racking  horse. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  horse  taken  away  at  the  same  time  ? 

A.  There  was  a  bay  horse. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  horse  was  that  in  size  ? 

A.  Lighter  than  the  other. 

Q.  Why  did  Atzerodt  take  away  those  horses  ?  Who  claimed  to  own  them  1 
"Who  was  the  owner,  in  fact  ? 

A.  Tliey  were  Surratt's  horses — entered  by  him,  at  least. 

Q.  Who  paid  for  their  keep  ? 

A.  Booth. 

Q.  Were  these  two  horses  returned  afterwards  ? 

A.  Ko,  sir. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  to  keep,  but  for  any  purpose  ? 

A.  They  were  brought  there  by  Atzerodt  to  selL 

Q.  That  is  what  I  am  asking  about.     Did  they  succeed  in  selling  them? 

A.  They  did  not. 

Q.  Then  what  was  done  with  them  ? 

A.  He  took  them  aM'ay. 

Q.  Who  took  them  away  ? 

A.  Atzerodt. 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  this  one-eyed  horse — this  fine  racker? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  the  government  stables  on  19th  street. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT.  223 

Q.  When  ? 

A.  Dnriiis^  the  tvinl  at  the  arseual 

Q.  What  is  called  the  couspiratorrt'  trial  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  went  up  there  at  the  instance  of  the  judge  advocate,  to  see  if 
he  was  there  and  to  see  if  I  could  recognize  him. 

Q.  Did  you  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Please  state  whether  that  is  the  written  order  of  which  you  have  spokeu 
heretofore.     (Handing  witness  a  paper.) 

A.  (After  examining  tlie  paper.)     That  is  it. 

Q.  In  Avhnse  handwriting  is  it  ? 

A.  John  H.  Surratt's. 

Mr.  Bkadley.  Did  you  ever  see  hira  write"? 

Wft.xr.ss.  Yes,  sir.  More  of  these  papers  are  on  file  now,  I  presume.  I  put 
them  away.     They  are  orders  and  directions  of  various  kinds. 

Mr.  3[krrick.  What  is  that  paper  marked  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  "Exhibit  27." 

Mr.  PiERRKi'ON'T.   I  will  now  read  this  note  to  the  jury. 

He  then  read  as  follows : 

"Mr.  Howard  will  please  let  the  bearer,  Mr.  Atzerodt,  have  my  horse  when- 
ever he  wishes  to  ride;  also  my  leggings  and  gloves;  and  oblige,  yours,  &c. 

(Signed)  "J.  H.  SURKATT, 

"541  H  street,  between  Sixth  and  Seventh  streets. 

"Feb.  22,  I860." 

Q.  Will  you  now  state  to  the  jury  whether  you  acted  on  this  order,  and  did 
let  him  have  the  horses  under  it  ? 

A  I  did,  until  that  order  was  rescinded. 

Q.  When  these  horses  of  Surratt's  were  taken  from  the  stables  who  took  them 
away  ? 

A.  Mr.  Booth  took  them  away. 

Q.  Who  paid  for  them? 

A.  Booth. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.\T.  It  is  possible  that  you  have  stated,  when  tlicy  were  brought 
back  to  sell,  who  took  them  again.     If  so,  I  do  not  want  it  again. 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  In  reference  to  the  men  coming  to  your  stable,  to  what  part  of  the  stable 
did  they  go  ? 

A.  They  went  down  to  the  lower  end  of  the  stable. 

Q.  That  was  the  back  part? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  they  do  when  they  got  down  to  the  back  part  of  the  stable  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know.  They  would  be  conversing  together.  Frequently 
I  noticed  that. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  the  manner  of  the  conversation  Avas,  so  that  these 
gentlemen  can  understand  it  ?  I  mean  as  to  whether  it  was  in  a  loud  or  in  a 
confidential,  whispering  tone. 

A.  They  would  generally  be  about  150  feet  from  me;  from  100  to  150  feet. 
Sometimes  I  would  see  them  when  they  would  be  down  there ;  at  other  times 
I  would  not ;   I  would  be  busy  in  the  office. 

Q.  Could  you  hear  anything  they  said  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  their  manner  of  conversation  ? 

A.  It  was  not  so  that  I  could  hear  any  voice  at  all. 

Q.  It  was  in  a  low  tone,  then  ? 

A.  AVell,  the  usual  tone,  I  suppose ;  I  could  not  tell  from  the  distance  I  was. 

Q.  You  could  not  hear  anything  that  was  said  ? 


224  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Xo,  sir.     I  could  not  hear  anything  of  the  conversation,  of  course.     They 
would  be  further  from  me  than  the  length  of  this  room. 
Q.  Their  appearance  indicated  conversation  1 
A.  Yes,  sir;  indicated  conversation,  of  course. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  You  say  those  hoi-ses  were  claimed  by  John  H.  Surratt  when  they  were 
taken  away  by  Booth.  Was  it  under  any  claim  of  ownership  ?  When  they  were 
taken  by  Booth  who  paid  for  their  keep  ?  Did  he  take  them  away,  or  claim  that 
he  bad  purchased  them  ? 

A.  He  took  them  away  after  I  had  received  information  from  Surratt  that  he 
would  take  them  away  and  pay  for  their  keep. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  their  having  been  sold? 

A.  Not  that  I  recollect  of  now. 

Q.  You  say  Booth  paid  for  them  when  he  took  them  away.  Had  not  Surratt 
before  that  paid  for  them  from  time  to  time  ? 

A.  He  had  paid  previously,  certainly. 

Q.  When  you  say  that  Atzerodt  held  that  letter  in  his  hands  and  stated  that 
it  was  dated  Richmond,  do  you  recollect  whether  he  did  not  tell  you  that  Surratt 
had  been  to  Richmond,  and  on  his  way  back  had  had  a  difficulty,  and  that 
the  detectives  were  after  him  1 

A.  I  saw  the  date  of  the  letter  myself.     He  may  have  said  that. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  about  that;  I  want  to  know  what  Atzerodt  said. 
I  want  to  know  whether  Atzerodt  did  not  tell  you  that  Surratt  had  been  to 
Richmond,  and  coming  back  had  got  into  difficulty,  and  that  the  detectives  were 
after  him,  and  that  he  was  making  his  way  to  the  north  ? 

A.  The  idea  conveyed  to  my  mind  was  that  he  had  heard  the  detectives  were 
after  him,  and  that  he  was  about  to  leave,  or  may  be,  had  left  Richmond. 

Q.  You  were  examined  before  the  military  commission  about  the  middle  of 
May? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  memory  was  fresher  then  than  it  is  now  ? 

A.  On  some  points  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  now  recollect  with  any  distinctness  what  time  in  April  that  con- 
versation occurred  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  the  time  precisely.  I  cannot  say  whether  it  was  in  April 
or  not.     I  only  recollect  the  circumstances. 

Q.  You  have  stated  before  that  in  the  early  part  of  April  Atzerodt  told  me  so 
and  so.     Is  that  your  recollection  now,  that  it  Avas  the  early  part  of  April  ] 

A.  It  must  have  been  iu  the  early  part  of  April,  or  previous  to  that.  I  do 
not  recollect  dates  very  well. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont.  You  stated  to  the  counsel  that  you  saw  the  date  of 
the  letter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  was  not  in  answer  to  any  question  of  mine  ;  and, 
therefore,  I  do  not  think  it  proper  that  you  should  refer  to  it  at  all.  I  told  the 
witness  at  the  time  that  I  did  not  want  him  to  state  anything  about  that,  but  only 
to  state  what  Atzerodt  said;  and  I  will  now  ask  the  court  to  tell  the  jury  that 
that  is  not  evidence. 

The  Court.  Of  course,  gentlemen,  that  answer  of  the  witness  is  not  evidence. 
You  will  understand  that. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  will  not  ask  the  witness  the  question  I  intended,  but  will 
put  another. 

Q.  I  simply  want  to  ask  you  one  question,  and  that  is  regarding  your  name. 
There  seems  to  be  some  misunderstanding  among  us  both  in  regard  to  it. 

A.  My  name  is  Brooke  Stabler. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  225 

Q.  Do  you  go  by  the  name  of  "Brook"  or"  Stabler"  generally,  when  spoken  of? 
A.  Familiarly  they  call  me  by  my  first  uaine,  "Brook." 

By  a  Juror : 

Q.  Is  it  not  a  very  common  thing  for  gentlemen  who  keep  horses   in  your 
stable  to  walk  to  the  end  of  your  stable  1 
A.  Many  do. 

James  "W.  Pumphrky,  livery-stable  keeper — residence,  Washington — sworn 
and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  I  reside  at  No.  252  C  street. 

Q.  State  yoiTr  business,  and  your  place  of  business. 

A.  1  am  keeper  of  a  livery  stable,  244  C  street,  between  Four-and-a-half  and 
Sixth. 

Q.  In  this  city  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  doing  business  there  ? 

A.  1  have  been  in  business  about  eleven  years. 

Q.  State  if  you  knew  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  when,  where,  and  under  what  circumstances  you  first  formed  his 
acquaintance. 

A.  John  Wilkes  Booth  came  to  my  stable  one  day  for  a  saddle-horse.  He 
asked  for  the  proprietor;  I  stepped  up  and  told  him  I  was  the  mm.  He  said 
he  wanted  a  saddle-horse  to  ride  for  a  few  hours.  I  cannot  tell  the  exact  day 
that  he  came  there.  I  did  not  know  at  the  time  it  was  Booth,  but  found  out 
that  it  was  after  talking  with  him  a  short  wliile.  He  said  he  wanted  a  sad- 
dle-horse to  take  a  few  hours'  ride  in  the  country.  I  told  him  I  could  let  him 
have  one.  He  said  he  did  not  wish  any  but  a  good  one.  I  told  him  I  had  a 
very  good  saddle-horse,  I  thought.  He  then  said  :  "  I  wish  you  Avould  have 
him  saddled."  I  ordered  him  saddled,  and  then  said  to  him:  "You  are  a 
stranger  to  me ;  and  it  is  always  customary  with  me  when  I  hire  a  horse  to  a 
stranger  to  have  him  give  me  some  securit3^  or  some  satisfactory  reference." 
At  that  time  Jlr.  Surratt — I  do  not  know  whether  he  stood  across  the  street,  or 
came  over 

Q.  The  prisoner  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Surratt  said  he  knew  him  ;  that  it  was  Mr.  Booth,  and  he  would 
take  good  care  of  the  horse.  I  cannot  now  tell  wliether  the  prisoner  came  over 
and  said  this  to  me,  or  stood  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street  and  hallooed 
across. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  A  great  many  years. 

Q    State  as  near  as  you  can  all  that  Surratt  said  at  that  time. 

A.  I  think  he  said  he  would  see  me  paid  for  it ;  that  he  was  going  to  take  a 
ride  with  Mr.  Booth. 

Q.  Go  on. 

A.  That  is  about  all.  I  went  in  and  ordered  the  horse  to  be  saddled  aiul  brought 
out.  There  were  some  gentlemen  sitting  in  front  of  my  stable  at  the  time. 
Who  they  Avere  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  horse  was  it  ? 

A.  A  light  sorrel.  When  I  came  out  with  the  horse  saddled,  he  was  gone. 
I  asked  some  of  them  out  at  the  door  where  he  went?  They  said  they  thought 
he  went  to  the  Pennsylvania  House.     The  boy  stood  at  the  door  with  the  horse 


226  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

and  I  stood  out  there,  watchinr^  for  him.  I  saw  him  come  out  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Houi^e.  He  came  out  alone,  and  came  over  and  started  off  on  the  horse 
alone. 

Q.  Where  is  this  Pennsylvania  House  1 

A.  It  is  on  the  south  side  of  C  street,  between  Four-and-a-half  and  Sixth, 
opposite  to  the  old  Exchange  Hotel. 

Q.  Will  you  state  the  next  time  you  saw  John  Wilkes  Booth  ] 

A.  I  could  not  tell  the  date  when  he  next  came  to  my  stable. 

Q.  When  was  it  you  had  this  interview — how  long  previous  to  the  assas- 
sination of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  really  forget — may-be  six  weeks  or  two  months  before.  May-be  a  little 
more  and  may-be  a  little  less.     I  cannot  tell  the  exact  time. 

Q.  State  the  next  time  you  saw  the  prisoner. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  ever  seeing  Mr.  Surratt  after  that.  He  never  called 
at  my  stable  after  that  time. 

Q.  State  the  next  time  you  saw  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

A.  That  I  could  not  do  ;  but  it  was  not  a  great  while — may -be  a  week  or  ten 
days,  or  two  weeks.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  coming  to  my  stable  and  hiring 
horses  after  the  time  to  which  I  have  alluded.  He  generally  rode  the  same 
horse  ;   always  when  he  could  get  him. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  saw  him  on  the  14tli  of  April,  18G5  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir.     He  called  at  my  stable  that  morning. 

Q.  State  what  time  it  was  you  saw  him. 

A..  Somewhere  between  11  and  1  o'clock,  as  well  as  I  can  remember.^  I 
did  not  pay  much  attention  to  the  time.  He  called  for  a  saddle  horse,  stating 
that  he  wanted  to  take  a  ride  that  afternoon.  He  expressed  a  desire  to  have 
the  same  horse  that  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  riding.  I  told  him  he  was 
engaged,  and  therefore  he  could  not  have  him.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I  could 
not  put  the  person  off  to  whom  I  had  engaged  him,  and  let  the  man  have  the 
horse  that  I  was  to  ffive  him.  I  told  him  I  could  not  do  that.  He  then  wanted 
me  to  give  him  a  good  one.  I  told  him  that  the  horse  I  was  going  to  give  him 
was  a  very  good  saddle  horse.  I  told  him  I  thought  so,  and  he  would  think  so 
after  he  had  ridden  him.  He  says  :  "Well,  don't  give  me  any  but  a  good  one." 
I  told  him  I  wouldn't ;  that  I  would  give  give  him  a  little  mare ;  that  she  was 
small,  but  a  very  good  one. 

Q.  What  color  was  the  mare  ? 

A.  She  was  a  bay  mare,  about  fourteen  hands  high.  I  put  on  her  an  English 
saddle,  and  a  snaffle-bit  bridle.     I  have  never  seen  saddle,  bridle,  or  Booth  since. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  prisoner  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  Mr.  Surratt  from  the  first  time  he  came  there  with  him.  If 
I  did,  I  do  not  remember  it.     He  never  called  at  my  place. 

Cross-examination  : 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  that  you  have  been  in  business  eleven  years  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  a  stable  at  the  corner  of  Sixth  and  C  streets  1 
A.  I  did.     I  went  there  in  1856. 
Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Surratt  there  ? 

A.  I  have  seen   Mr.  Surratt  come  with  his   father  very  often  to  that  corner, 
and  where  I  am  at  present. 
Q.  How  large  was  he  then  ? 

A.  He  was  very  small.     I  went  to  keep  the  stable  in  1856. 
Q.  At  what  time  did  you  go  where  you  are? 
A.  In  1S5S.     Surratt  was  but  a  small  boy  when  I  first  knew  him. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  227 

The  Court.  A  small  boy  in  1858  ? 

IVfr.  Bkadi.ry.  Yes,  sir.     He  is  only  23  or  24  years  old  now. 
Q.  You  say  you  took  charg:e  of  tlie  stable  Avhere  you  are  now  in  1858  1 
A.  Yes,  sir.     October  5,  18-58. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  David  Reed  about  that  stable? 
A.  He  has  been  there  ;  but  he  never  stopped  over  five  minutes.     I  do  not  thiiik 
he  was  ever  there  more  than  half  a  dozen  times  in  his  life. 

John  Fletchkr — residence  in  Washington — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pikrrepont  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  At  Tim  Nailor's  livery  stable,  upon  E  street,  between  Thirteen-and-a 
half  and  Fourtoonth  ^^treets. 

Q.  When'  did  you  reside  on  the  14th  of  April,  I860  ? 

A.  At  Nailor's  stable. 

Q.  At  the  same  place  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  did  you  see  Atzerodt  and  Herold? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  where  you  saw  them  and  what  occurred. 

A.  I  saw  them  at  Nailor's  stable,  but  not  together. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  first  ? 

A.  Atzerodt. 

Q.  Subsequently,  did  you  see  Herold  ? 

A.  In  about  an  hour  after. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whatHerold  did  1 

A.  He  engaged  a  horse  of  me. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  wanted  to  know  what  was  the  price. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  tell  you  to  keep  it,  or  did  he  tell  you  1 

A.  He  told  me  to  keep  it  for  him  until  ten  minutes  past  4  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  he  come  there  at  that  hour,  or  about  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  what  did  he  say  ? 

A.  When  he  came  in  he  asked  me  if  I  had  the  horse  ready,  and  I  told  him 
I  had.     He  asked  me  how  much  I  charged,  and  I  told  him  $5. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  -what  he  wanted  the  horse  for  ? 

A.  He  told  me  he  was  going  to  ride  with  a  lady. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  that  ? 

A.  I  said  nothing  to  it. 

Q.  Did  he  inquire  for  any  particular  horse  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  horse  ? 

A.  A  light-colored  roan  horse  in  the  stable,  called  Charley. 

Q.  Did  he  get  that  horse  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  taking  another  horse  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  about  that  ? 

A.  He  rlid  not  lik-?  that  horse  so  well.     He  wanted  that  light-colored  roan  horse. 

Q.  Did  you  finally  give  it  to  him  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  else  did  he  want  1 

A.  He  wanted  an  English  saddle  and  bridle  to  the  same  horse. 


228  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT. 

Q.  Did  lie  ask  to  see  tliem  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  show  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "What  did  he  say  when  you  showed  them  ? 
•  A.  He  did  not  say  anything.     I  took  him  into  the  harness  room. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  the  size  of  either  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  show  him  a  saddle  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  of  that  ? 

A.  I  showed  him  two  diiTerent  saddles,  neither  of  which  suited  him,  and  he 
picked  out  one  of  his  own  choosing. 

Q.  Did  he  take  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  the  stirrups  of  the  saddle  ? 

A.  Y'es,  sir.  I  showed  him  a  saddle  on  which  were  military  stirrups,  but  he 
did  not  like  that  so  well  as  the  English  saddle  and  stirrups. 

Q.  Which  did  he  take  1 

A.  He  took  the  iron  stirrups,  and  the  English  saddle. 

Q.  Did  he  want  a  particular  bridle  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  I  took  him  into  the  office  and  showed  him  the  bridles. 

Q.  What  kind  of  bridle  did  he  select? 

A.  A  double-rein  bridle,  with  two  bits  on. 

Q.  What  did  he  ask  you  before  he  mounted  1 

A.  He  did  not  ask  me  anything. 

Q.  Did  he  at  any  time  say  anything  to  you  about  staying  out  ? 

A.  I  asked  him  how  long  he  was  going  to  stay  out.  He  said  he  did  not 
know.  I  then  told  him  he  could  not  keep  the  horse  out  any  later  than  8  o'clock — 
9  o'clock  at  the  furthest. 

Q.  When  8  or  9  o'clock  came,  what  happened  1 

A.  Nothing  happened  at  that  time  between  him  and  myself. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  did  not  do  anything. 

Q.  Did  the  horse  come  back  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  then  did  you  do  ?     Did  you  go  out  to  look  for  the  horse  1 

A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Did  you  see  Atzerodt  and  Herold  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  I  do  not  like  to  interpose,  but  I  must  say  that  this  is  a  most 
leading  examination. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  admit  it  is  leading,  but  I  cannot  get  the  witness  to  nar- 
rate. 

The  Court.  Let  us  try  and  see  if  we  cannot.  It  is  always  best  to  avoid 
leading  questions. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  when  you  saw  these  two  men  together  1 

A.  I  never  saw  the  two  of  them  together  that  day  at  all ;  I  saw  them  sep- 
arately. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  separately  at  your  stable  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  about  9  o'clock  ? 

A.  When  it  came  to  9  o'clock  I  had  suspicion  about  the  man  not  returning 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   II.    SURRATT.  229 

■with  tlie  horse.  Atzerodt  came  after  his  horse  about  10  oV-lock.  I  sent  one  of 
the  boys  down  the  stable  to  get  the  horse  ready  for  him.  He  afterwards  wanted 
to  know  if  I  would  not  2:0  and  take  a  drink  with  him.  I  told  him  that  I  had 
nf)  objection.  He  and  I  then  went  down  to  the  Union  Hotel  and  had  a  <j;la^s  of  ale. 
He  asked  me  if  I  would  have  any  more.  I  thanked  him,  but  told  him  I  would 
not  take  any  more.  Keturning  back  to  the  stable,  he  said  to  me,  "  If  this  thing 
happens  to-nig-ht.  you  will  hear  of  a  present."  When  he  had  mounted  his  horse 
I  remarked  to  him,  "  I  woiild  not  like  to  ride  that  horse  this  time  of  night ;  he 
looks  too  scarish."  Said  he,  "  He  is  good  on  a  retreat."  He  seemed  to  be 
very  mucli  excited.  Having  suspicion  of  him,  because  of  his  acquaintance,  Herold, 
not  returning  with  the  horse  at  9  o'clock,  as  I  told  him  to  do,  1  followed  after 
him,  and  saw  him  alight  in  front  of  the  Kirkwood  House,  hitch  his  horse  out- 
side, and  then  enter  the  hotel.  I  waited  until  he  came  out  and  mounted  again. 
He  went  along  the  avenue  a  short  way,  and  then  turned  into  D  street ; 
went  along  D  street  to  Tenth,  which  he  turned  up.  That  was  the  last  I  saw  of 
him.  I  then  returned  back  to  the  stable,  and  inquired  at  the  office  if  the  roan 
horse  had  come  in.     They  told  me  that  it  had  not. 

By  Assistant  District  Attorney  "Wilson  : 

Q.  What  time  was  it  when  Atzerodt  turned  up  Tenth  street  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  ten  minutes  past  10  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  again  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Herold  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  On  the  corner  of  Fourteenth  street  and  the  avenue. 

Q.  State  what  he  was  doing. 

A.  He  was  coming  down  the  avenue  from  Fifteenth  street.  He  was  not  riding 
very  fast.     It  seems  he  knew  me.     I  went  up  to  him  and  demanded  the  horse. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  that  1 

A.  I  think  it  must  have  been  twelve  minutes  past  10  o'clock. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  had  seen  Atzerodt  turning  up  Tenth  street  1 

A.  I  cannot  say  how  long.  I  walked  just  as  fast  a  I  could  from  Twelfth 
street  to  Fourteenth  street.  AVhen  I  demanded  the  horse  from  Herold  he  paid 
no  attention  to  me,  but  put  spurs  into  the  horse,  and  went  up  Fourteenth  street 
as  fast  as  the  horse  could  go.  I  kept  sight  of  him  until  he  turned  east  of  F 
street.  I  then  returned  to  the  stable,  saddled  and  bridled  a  horse,  and  started 
after  him.  I  knew  that  Atzerodt  had  to  cross  the  Navy  Yard  bridge  in  order 
to  get  home,  and  that  this  Herold  being  a  friend  of  his,  would  probably  go  in 
that  direction;  so  I  started  in  that  direction.  When  I  got  east  of  the  Capitol 
I  met  a  gentleman,  who  said 

Mr.  r.K.\i)LKV.  Don't  state  what  he  said. 

WnwKss.  I  continued  on  to  the  Navy  Yard  bridge,  when  I  was  halted  by 
the  guard.     I  described  Herold 

Mr.  Bradlkv.  Never  mind  what  was  said. 

Witness.  In  conseqiience  of  information  I  then  received,  I  returned  back  to 
the  stable. 

Q.  State  what  became  of  those  horses,  if  you  know. 

A.  I  do  not  know  indeed.     We  have  never  got  ours  since. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  one  Herold  had,  and  then  the  other  ? 

A.  The  one  that  I  hired  Herold  was  a  light-colored  roan  horse,  black  tail, 
black  legs,  and  black  mane. 

Q.  Large  or  small  1 

A.  About  fifteen  bauds  high. 


230  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  What  was  liis  make  ;  was  he  compactly  built,  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  He  was  compactly  built. 

Q.  What  was  his  age  1 

A.  About  twelve  or  thirteen  years. 

Q.  What  was  his  gait'? 

A.   Single-foot  racker. 

Q.  As  to  his  forehead,  was  there  anything  to  mark  it? 

A.  There  were  no  marks  at  all  aboi;t  him. 

Q.  Is  there  any  single  fact  to  mark  him  that  will  give  a  more  complete  de- 
scription than  you  have  given  1 

A.  No,  sir;  only  that  his  back  was  sore  from  a  lady's  saddle  being  placed  on 
him  so  often. 

Q.  Had  ladies  been  accustomed  to  riding  him  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  not,  then,  frightened  at  a  lady's  robe,  or  anything  of  that  kind  I 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now  describe  the  horse  Atzerodt  had. 

A.  He  had  a  dark  brown  horse. 

Q.  What  was  his  gait  ? 

A.  He  was  a  pacing  horse. 

Q.  Size? 

A.  Over  fifteen  hands  high. 

Q.  Was  his  action  quick  or  heavy  ? 

A.  Veiy  heavy. 

Q.  What  as  to  his  rapidity ;  was  he  fast  or  slow  ? 

A.  Very  slow. 

Q.  What  marks  had  he  on  him  ? 

A.  He  was  blind  in  one  eye ;  his  right  eye  was  blind. 

Q.  You  have  never  seen  him  since  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw  him  up  at  Major  General  Augur's  headquarters,  on  the 
corner  of  Seventeenth  and  I  streets. 

Q.  When? 

A.  I  think  it  was  upon  the  17th  of  May,  ISCo ;  I  was  sent  from  the  military 
commission  up  there. 

Q.  What  became  of  this  one-eyed  horse  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  They  had  him  in  the  stable  there.  I  do  not  know  what 
has  become  of  him  since. 

Q.  You  did  not  receive  him  again  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  belong  to  us. 

Q.  Whose  horse  was  it  ? 

A.  Atzerodt  brought  him  to  the  stable ;  I  do  not  know  who  was  the  owner, 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  that  one-eyed  horse  before  ?  : 

A.  No,  sir.  \ 

Q.  When  did  he  bring  him  to  the  stable  ?  | 

A.  On  the  3d  of  April,  1865. 

Q.  You  are  sure  about  the  date  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Atzerodt  brought  him  himself? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  another  gentleman  came  there  with  him. 

Q.  Who  was  the  other  gentleman  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  he  was. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  the  other  gentleman  who  came  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  can. 

Q.  Suppose  you  do. 

A.  He  was  a  man  of  about  five  feet  seven  and  a  half,  I  think. 


I 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  231 

Q.  Of  what  age  do  you  tbink  ? 

A.  His  age,  1  think,  was  from  thirty  to  thirty-five  years. 

Q.  Give  us  hi.s  complexion,  and  the  color  of  his  hair. 

A.  He  had  hlack  hair,  and  wore  a  heavy  black  moustache. 

Q.  Was  his  face  rough,  or  smooth  1 

A.  Very  smooth. 

Q.  "Was  his  hair  straight,  or  curly  ? 

A.  Curly — kind  of;  rather  bushy. 

Q.  What  was  his  size  1 

A.  He  was  something  about  my  own  make. 

Q.  Did  he  seem  like  a  strong  man,  or  a  weak  one  1 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  very  healthy-looking. 

Q.  Thin,  or  stout  ? 

A.  Thin  ;  about  my  own  make. 

Q.  As  tall  as  you  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  about  the  same  height,  I  think. 

John  J.  Toffey — residence  Hudson  City,  New  Jersey — sworn  and  exam- 
ined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  the  14th  of  April,  IS'Gy  ? 

A.  I  was  then  a  lieutenant  in  the  A'eteran  Reserve  Corps.  I  commanded  a 
company  at  Lincoln  hospital,  which  was  doing  guard  duty. 

Q.  What  is  your  rank  ? 

A.  Second  lieutenant  42d  Co.,  2d  battalion.  Veteran  Reserve  Corps. 

Q.  State  the  particulars  of  what  you  did  in  connection  with  the  horse  cap- 
tured by  one  of  your  guard  on  the  suburbs  of  the  city  on  the  night  of  the  14th 
of  April,  1S65. 

A.  On  the  night  of  the  14th,  or  the  morning  of  the  loth  of  April,  last — it 
might  have  been  a  little  after  one — as  I  was  going  to  the  Lincoln  hospital, 
where  I  am  on  duty,  T  saw  a  dark  bay  horse,  with  saddle  and  bridle  on,  stand- 
ing at  Lincoln  Branch  barracks,  about  three-quarters  of  a  mikj  east  of  the  Cap- 
itol. The  sweat  was  pouring  off  him,  and  had  made  a  regular  puddle  on  the 
ground.  A  sentinel  at  the  hospital  had  stopped  the  horse.  1  put  agu  ird  round 
it,  and  kept  it  there  until  the  cavalry  picket  was  thrown  out,  when  I  reported 
the  fact  at  the  otHce  of  the  picket,  and  was  requested  to  take  the  horse  down  to 
the  headquarters  of  the  picket,  at  the  Old  Capitol  prison.  I  there  reported 
Laving  the  horse  to  Captain  Lord,  and  he  requested  me  to  take  it  to  General 
Augur's  head(juarters.  Captain  Lansing,  of  the  loth  New  York  cavalry,  and 
myself  took  it  there,  where  the  saddle  was  taken  off,  and  the  horse  taken  charge 
of. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  ordered,  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  to  go  and  see  if 
I  could  recognize  the  horse  at  the  stable. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  ? 

A.  I  went  alone,  I  think. 

Q..  Describe  the  horse. 

A.  He  was  a  very  large  bay  horse.  He  was  blind  of  one  eye,  although  I  did 
not  notice  that  until  I  got  to  Gene.al  Augur's. 

Q.  Which  eye] 

A.  Really,  1  do  not  remember. 

Q.  How  about  the  saddle  ] 

A.  The  saddle  was  a  sort  of  citizen's  saddle,  with  army  stirrups — small 
wooden  stirrups.  The  covering  over  the  stirrups  was  off — of  one,  1  know — I 
thiuk  of  both. 


232  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  "What  time  was  it  tliat  you  found  him  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  exact  time — between  12  and  1  o'clock,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  lide  him  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  AVhat  was  his  gait  ? 

A.  He  was  very  much  excited.  I  could  hai'dly  hold  him  in  while  going  to 
General  Augur's  oflSce.  He  appeared  a  little  lame  when  I  was  going  down.  He 
might  not  have  been,  however.  Pie  was  excited,  and  quivering  very  much 
when  I  lirst  got  him  from  the  guard. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  caught '! 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  was  it  from  Tenth  street  where  he  was  taken  ] 

A.  It  was  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile  east  of  the  Capitol. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERXOON    SESSION. 

HoNORA  FiTZPATRiCK  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  jury  whether  you  have  not  lived  in  this 
city  some  time,  and  whether  it  is  not  your  native  city. 

A.  It  is  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  father's  first  name. 

A.  James. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  jury  if  you  knew  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  know  him  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  long  I  was  acquainted  with  Mr.  Booth. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  you  first  formed  his  acquaintance,  and  where  he 
was  1 

A.  I  met  him  at  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

Q.  Where  was  Mrs.  Surratt  liv^ing  at  that  time? 

A.  On  H  street,  between  Sixth  and  Seventh. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  number  of  the  house  ? 

A.  541. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  year  it  was  you  first  saw  him  there  1 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  1865. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  what  month  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  at  the  house,  to  your  recollection  ? 

A.  I  met  Mr.  Booth  there  several  times.     I  do  not  know  how  often  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Were  you  boarding  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  boarding  there  ? 

A.  From  the  6th  of  October,  1S64,  until  the  time  I  was  arrested. 

Q.  When  were  you  arrested  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  some  time  in  April. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  assassination? 

A.  The  assassination  was  committed  Friday,  the  14th.  I  was  arrested  the 
Monday  following. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  knew  a  man  by  the  name  of  George  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  him  by  that  name. 

Q.  By  what  name  did  you  know  him  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  by  the  name  of  "Port  Tobacco." 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  233 

A.  I  met  liim  at  !J[rs.  Sarratt's. 

Q.  About  what  time  Ava?  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember;  he  caHcd  there  one  afternoon. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  year  it  was,  and  what  month  ? 

A.  Xo,  i<ir ;   I  do  not  remember. 

Q    How  h)ng  before  the  a.ssassination  was  it  that  you  saw  tliis  man  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q    Was  it  not  the  day  or  night  previous  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   that  wa.s  not  the  night. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  this  man  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  liow  often  I  met  him  there. 

Q.  Did  you  see  iiim  there  more  than  once  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  think  I  haA^e  seen  him  there  more  than  once. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  his  ever  spending  a  night  there  ? 

A.  I  remember  he  staid  there  one  night. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  night  that  was — how  long  before  the  assassina- 
tion '/ 

A.  I  do  not  remember,  sir. 

Q.  Could  you  give  any  approximate  idea  of  the  time  1 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  have  no  idea  at  all. 

Q.  Do  yon  knoAv  how  long  you  commenced  boarding  there  before  Atzerodt 
came  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q    Did  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  Lewis  Payne,  whom  you  saw  before 
the  military  commission  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know   him  by  that  name.     I  knew  him  by  the  name  of  Mr. 
Wood. 

Q.  When  and  where  did  you  first  see  him  ? 

A.  I  met  him  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  also. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  liim  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  seeing  him  there  but  twice. 

Q.  With  whom  did  he  come,  and  in  Avh;it  company  did  he  come? 

A.  He  called  there  one  evening  by  himself. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  some  time  in  March. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  time  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  room  did  you  first  see  him? 

A.  I  met  him  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  With  whom  was  he  talk'ng  at  that  time  1 

A.  He  was  not  conversing  with  any  one  in  particular. 

Q.  Who  were  in  the  room  at  that  time  ? 

A.  ^Irs.  Surratt,  her  daughter  Annie,  Miss  Holohan,  and  Mr.  Weichman. 

Q.  When  was  the  next  time  you  saw  him  there? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  March,  also. 

Q.  Did  you  never  see  him  there  afterwards  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  the  day  you  were  arrested  I 

A.  I  recognized  him  at  the  office  after  I  was  taken  there. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  at  the  house  ? 

A.  He  was  at  the  house,  but  I  did  not  recognize  him* 

Q    When  you  got  to  the  office  you  recognized  himias  a  man  whom  you  had 
seen  at  the  house  I 

A.  1  saw  Mr.  Wood,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  say  Wood,  do  you  mean  Lewi.9  PJiyne,  whom  yo\i  saw  before  the 
commission  ? 
16 


234  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  the  prisoner,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Avhen  was  the  last  time  you  saw  him  at  his  mother's  in 
April  ? 

A.  The  last  time  I  saw  Mr.  Surratt  was  two  weeks  before  the  assassination. 

Q.  During  these  visits  by  Atzerodt  and  Payne  to  Booth,  did  you  see  John  at 
the  house  ?  and  if  so,  did  you  ever  see  or  hear  them  conversing. 

A.  I  have  seen  them,  but  never  heard  them  conversing,  together. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  in  the  month  of  ^farch  of  going  to  Ford's  theatre?  and 
if  so,  state  in  whose  company  you  went  1 

A.  I  went  with  Mr.  Surratt,  Mr.  Wood,  and  Miss  Dean. 

Q.  State  in  what  part  of  the  theatre  you  were  seated — whether  you  occupied 
a  box  or  seat  in  the  orchestra. 

A.  We  occupied  a  box,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  say  Mr.  Surratt,  you  mean  John  H.  Surratt,  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  say  Mr.  Wood  you  mean  Lewis  Payne  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  While  your  party  was  in  the  box,  did  you  see  J.  Wilkes  Booth  ?  If  so, 
state  what  he  did. 

A.  Mr.  Booth  came  there  and  spoke  to  Mr.  Surratt.  They  both  stepped  out- 
side the  box,  and  stood  there  at  the  door. 

Q.  You  mean  spoke  to  the  prisoner  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  any  one  else  joined  them  while  they  were  standing  there. 

A.  Mr.  Wood. 

>Q.  Lewis  Payne,  you  mean  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

'Q.  How  long  were  these  three  talking  together  1 

A.  They  remained  there  a  few  minutes. 

Q.  Could  you  hear  what  they  said  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  paying  attention  ;   they  were  conversing  together. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  where  that  box  was — in  what  part  of  the  theatre. 

A.  I  think  it  was  an  upper  box.  I  do  not  remember  which  side  of  the  theatre 
it  was  on. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  play  was  this  conversation — in  the  middle  or  near 
the  close  1 

A.  It  was  near  the  last  part. 

Q.  After  they  separated,  which  Avay  did  they  go,  and  which  way  did  your 
party  go? 

A.  We  returned  to  Mis.  Surratt's  house. 

Q.  Which  way  did  Booth  go  r 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir. 

Q.  Which  way  did  Wood  or  Payne  go  ? 

A.  I  don't  know,  sir.  I  returned  to  my  room.  I  did  not  see  him  any  more 
that  night. 

Q.  Did  Wood  go  back  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  that  night  ? 

A.  He  came  up  in  the  carriage  with  us.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  remained 
there  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  continue  in  the  city,  or  did  you  go  away  ?  and  if  so  where '? 

A.  I  went  to  Baltimore  the  next  morning. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  in  Baltimore  ? 

A.  I  remained  in  Baltimore  a  week, 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  this  man  Wood  or  Payne  was  living  at  the  time  you 
boarded  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  235 

Q.  Do  you  know  wlietlier  lie  called  at  the  Heradon  House  in  tliis  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Where  is  that  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  street  it  is  on. 

Q.  I  allude  to  the  llerndon  House  corner  of  ninth  and  F  ;  you  know  the 
house  ? 

A.  I  know  the  house,  but  I  do  not  know  what  street  it  is  on. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  passing  by  that  house  some  time  in  the  month  of  ^Earch, 
shortly  before  the  assassination  of  the  President,  in  company  with  Mrs.  Surratt 
and  others  ? 

A.  I  remember  passing  with  Mrs.  Sui'ratt;  I  do  not  know  what  month  it 
was. 

Q.  Who  were  in  company  with  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt,  Mr.  Weichman,  and  Miss  Jenlvins. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  Herndon  House,  state  what  Mrs.  Surratt  did  and 
what  the  rest  of  the  party  did  1 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  went  in,  the  others  of  us  walked  up  the  street  a  little  ways. 

Q.  Did  you  wait  for  her  up  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  How  long  did  you  wait  for  her  ? 

A.  Only  a  few  minutes    there. 

Q.  Where  had  you  been  coming  from  ? 

A.  From  St.  Patrick's  church,  on  F  street. 

Q,  What  day  of  the  week  was  it  1 

A.  I  don't  remember,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  or  any  of  the  party,  to  your  knowledge,  while 
you  were  going  in  that  direction,  that  she  intended  going  into  the  house  I 

A.  No,  sir  f   I  did  not  know  she  was  going  there  until  she  stopped. 

Q.  Did  you  or  any  of  the  party  ask  her  what  she  went  there  for  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  state  to  you  afterwards  what  she  went  in  there  for  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember  asking  her. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  it  spoken  of  afterwards  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  she  staid  there  ? 

A.  She  remained  tliere  a  few  minutes. 

Q.  After  Mrs.  Surratt  had  been  in  the  house  did  she  come  up  and  join  the 
party  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  Where  did  you  then  go  ? 

A.  We  returned  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  H  street. 

Q.  Where  was  John  at  that  time  j 

A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  How  long  after  that  was  it  before  you  sxw  Wood  or  Payne  at  Mrs. 
Surratt's.      Did  you  not  see  him  the  next  day  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  it  before  you  did  see  him  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  how  long  after  that. 

By  Mr.  Pierrei'ont  : 

Q.  Do  you  remember  John  Surratt  going  to  New  York, 
A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember  his  going. 

Q.  Have  you  any  memory  of  his  going  to  New  York  during  the  y.ar  1865 
at  any  time? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hearing  him  say  anything  about  it  at  any  time  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 


236  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

George  F.  Chapin  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  State  your  residence  and  occupation. 

A.  I  live  in  Stockbriclge,  Vermont,  and  I  am  a  farmer. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  that  place? 

A.  Since  a  year  ago  last  February. 

Q.  Have  you  at  any  time  been  in  Burlington,  Vermont  ? 

A.  I  moved  from  there  in  February,  1866. 

Q.  In  the  month  of  April,  1865,  where  M'ere  you  ? 

A.  I  was  in  Burlington  most  of  the  time — not  all  of  the  time. 

Q.  What  day  near  the  middle  of  April  were  you  in  Burlington  ? 

A.  I  left  Burlington  on  Friday  evening.  I  have  forgotten  the  day  of  the 
month.  I  was  on  my  way  to  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  with  some  recruits  aud 
stragglers  for  Grapevine  Point.  I  left  there  on  Friday  evening  ;  I  have  forgot- 
ten the  day  of  the  month. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  day  with  reference  to  the  assassination? 

A.  Tt  Avas  previous  to  it,  that  is,  it  was  previous  to  when  I  had  heard  of  it. 
I  heard  of  it  when  on  my  way  down,  at  Springfield,  Massachusetts. 

Q    When  did  you  go  back  ? 

A.  I  went  back  on  what  they  called  the  3.1  o  train  from  New  Haven,  Monday. 
I  think  the  train  left  New  Haven  at  3.15. 

Q.   State  whether  this  was  before  or  after  the  assassination. 

A.  This  was  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  State  whether  it  was  the  Monday  immediately  following  the  assassination, 
or  otherwise. 

A.  It  was  the  next  Monday  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  You  know,  do  you  not,  on  what  day  of  the  week  the  assassination  was  ? 

A.  It  was  on  Friday  of  the  previous  week. 

Q.  Wlien  you  got  back  to  Burlington  did  you  see  a  witness  who  has  been  on 
the  stand,  Charles  Blinn  ? 

A.  Not  immediately.     I  did  not  go  to  Burlington  that  day. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Charles  Blinn,  after  your  return  from  New  Haven  ? 

A.  I  should  judge  it  was  on  Wednesday  evening.  I  think  that  was  the  first 
time. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  At  the  Central  depot  in  Burlington. 

Q.  AVill  you  state  whether  you  there  received  anything  from  him  that  after- 
noon 1 

A.  If  I  may  be  allowed,  I  will  explain  why  1  saw  him  on  that  occasion.  I 
was  not  in  the  habit  of  speaking  to  him  usually  ;  but  on  my  way  from  Essex 
Junction 

]\Ir.  Bradley.  You  must  not  state  your  conversations  with  Blinn. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now  tell  US  what  occurred  ? 

A.  He  showed  me  an  article ;  I  looked  at  it,  and  told  him  I  would  like  to 
have  it. 

Q.  What  was  the  article? 

A.  A  pocket  handkerchief. 

Q.  How  was  it  marked  ? 

A.  It  was  marked  "John  H.  Surratt;"  I  think,  "No.  2." 

Q.  Have  you  it  before  you  now  ? 

A.  I  should  not  recognize  it,  from  the  M-ay  it  looked  then,  because  then  it  was 
very  dirty.     I  think  it  is  the  same  handkerchief.     It  looks  like  it. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  Mr.  Blinn  here  ] 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  237 

A.  I  have  not.     He  left  before  I  arrived. 

Q.  What  mark  is  there  on  the  handkerchief  you  have  before  you? 

A.  It  is  marked"  John  H.  Surratt,  2." 
Cross-examined  by  ^Ir.  Bradlky  : 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  give  that  handkerchief? 

A,  I  gave  it  to  George  A.  Gurnett. 

Q.  Who  is  he  ? 

A.  Gurnett,  he  called  himself  to  me.  He  called  himself  one  of  Baker's  detec- 
tives.    He  came  to  Burlington. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  was  on  Wednesday  ? 

A.  I  gave  it  to  him  the  next  week ;  Tuesday,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  1 

A.  In  Burlington. 

Q.  Were  you  a  detective  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  In  Baker's  employ  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  properly  a  detective.  My  appoint- 
ment came  from  Captain  Gleason,  provost  marshal  of  the  od  district  of  Vermont. 

Q.  Did  you  report  at  all  to  Major  Ginut,  comuiiuding  at  St.  Albins  ? 

A.  I  did  not ;   I  had  notliing  to  do  with  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Gurnett  is  now  ] 

A.  I  do  not ;   I  have  never  seen  him  since  that  day. 

Q.  You  left  Burlington  to  go  to  New  Haven  on  Friday  evening? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  by  the  8  o'clock  train. 

Q.  And  at  Springfield  you  heard  of  the  assassination ;  what  time  did  the  traia 
arrive  at  Springfield  ? 

A.  About  7  o'clock  ;  sometimes  later. 

Q.  What  time  that  morning? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  you  the  exact  time.  T  had  to  wait  there  one  train  before 
I  went  on  to  New  Haven  with  my  recruits.  If  we  met  the  other  train  from 
Boston  we  could  go  right  on  without  stopping  five  minutes ;  but  if  not,  we  had  to  stop 
over  until  2  o'clock.     I  arrived  there  in  the  early  part  of  the  afternoon. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  you  received  that  handkerchief  from  Blinn  ? 

A.  I  did  not  receive  it  direct  from  Blinn  until  the  day  I  gave  it  to  George 
Gurnett,  on  Tuesday,  the  25th  of  April.  I  had  previously  seen  the  handker- 
chief. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  it  ? 

A.  On  the  Wednesday  evening  previous. 

Q.  What  enables  you  to  fix  that  date  ? 

A.  On  Tuesday  morning  when  I  returned  from  New  Haven  I  went  directly 
home.  I  lived  two  miles  out  of  Burlington.  Then  about  the  middle  of  the  day, 
Tuesday,  I  drove  over  with  ray  team  and  reported  to  the  office  and  returned 
immediately  back.  My  wife  was  A-ery  sick.  I  staid  there  until  Wednes- 
day. On  AVednesday  I  went  down  to  Essex  Junction  and  left  my  team,  and  went 
down  in  the  Wednesday  evening  train. 

Q.  And  you  think  it  was  on  that  Wednesday  you  first  saw  the  handkerchief? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  Burlington  then,  or  remain  there  ? 

A.  I  was  at  Burlington  every  day,  more  or  less. 

Q.  Between  the  first  time  you  saw  the  handkerchief  and  the  time  you  gave  it 
to  Gurnett,  how  many  times  were  you  at  Burlington? 

A.  I  think  I  did  not  leave  there  again  until  Friday,  when,  I  think,  I  was  at 
home.  On  Saturday  I  returned  to  Burlington,  and  left  again  on  Sunday.  I 
could  not  say  I  did  not  leave  Burlington.  I  went  home  Thursday  and  staid  at 
home  Thursday  night,  if  I  remember  right. 


238  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   II.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  was  it  not  on  Saturday  morning  that  you  first  beard  of  and  saw 
tba*;  handkerchief  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  not. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  in  your  memory  which  will  enable  you  to  fix  whether 
it  was  Wednesday  or  Saturday  morning,  or  some  time  during  the  day  on  Satur- 
day 1 

A.  I  could  not  have  seen  him  during  the  day  on  Saturday,  or  any  other  day, 
because  be  was  away  from  Burlington  during  the  day. 

Q.  He  was  not  there  on  Saturday  afternoon  ? 

A.  He  came  in  Saturday  evening  to  the  depot. 

Q.  Before  sunset  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  what  time  in  the  evening.  He  came  in  the  evening  and  left 
early  the  next  morning, 

Q.  What  fact  is  there  to  fix  it  in  your  mind  that  you  saw  that  handkerchief 
on  Wednesday  evening  instead  of  Saturday  evening  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  anything  that  I  could  tell  to  you.  I  was 
boarding  at  the  hotel.  Mr.  Blinn  said  he  would  take  it  home  for  his  motlier  to 
wash  it.  I  called  for  it  once  after  that,  and  he  said  his  mother  had  been  away; 
that  his  brother  had  died  ;  that  she  bad  not  washed  it,  but  would  do  so. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  day  when  he  said  his  brother  died  ? 

A.  I  cannot ;  and  I  cannot  tell  you  whether  it  was  Friday  evening  or  Saturday 
evening  that  he  made  this  excuse. 

Q.  Did  not  he  tell  you  that  bis  brother  had  died  and  his  mother  was  absent 
attending  him  on  Thursday  evening ;  and  did  he  not  tell  you  this  on  Saturday  1 

A.  He  did  not  tell  me  the  particulars  at  all, 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  more  than  one  handkerchief? 

A.  I  think  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  not  show  you  two  handkerchiefs,  one  marked  "  John  H.  Surratt,  2," 
and  one  not  marked,  and  both  very  dirty  ? 

A.  If  be  did,  I  took  very  little  notice  of  it.  It  was  nothing  I  paid  particular 
attention  to. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Gurnett  there  were  two  handkerchiefs  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Gurnett  that  you  got  a  handkerchief  on  Saturday  evening', 
marked  John  U.  Surratt  1 

A.  0,  no,  sir ;  because  I  did  not  get  it  there. 

Q.  Did  not  you  tell  him  that  you  first  saw  it  on  Saturday  afternoon  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  tell  him  any  such  thing.  I  could  not  have  told  him 
that,  for  I  could  not  have  seen  him  at  any  time  during  the  middle  of  the  day. 

Q.  I  did  not  say  any  particular  time ;  I  mean  in  the  afternoon  of  Saturday  ] 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  told  him  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  when  you  first  saw  it  ? 

A.  I  probably  did.     I  could  not  say. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  telling  him  that  Blinn  showed  it  to  you  on  Saturday 
afternoon,  and  that  there  were  two  handkerchiefs  together,  both  very  dirty,  one 
marked  and  one  not  marked  1 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  did  not  tell  him  ? 

A.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  I  did  not  tell  him,  for  I  cannot  remember  everything 
I  said  tAvo  years  ago. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  statement  to  anybody  else  except  Gurnett  at  the  time 
in  regard  to  that  handkerchief? 

A.  No,  I  think  not ;  I  do  not  think  I  ever  made  a  statement  in  regard  to  it 
from  that  time  until  last  Saturday  night. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  report  of  it  as  a  detective  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  239 

A.  I  presume  I  might  at  the  office  have  reported  it  verbally  to  Captain  Gleasou' 
at  the  provost  marshal's  office  ;  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Where  is  Captain  Gleason  now  ? 

A.  At  Richmond,  Vermont,  I  presume ;  I  have  not  seen  him  lately. 

Q.  What  is  his  first  name  1 

A.  Rolla,  I  think ;  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  a  middle  name. 

Q.  You  remember  seeing  Captain  Gleasou  at  that  time? 

A.  I  saw  him  usually  every  day.     I  was  in  his  office  when  not  on  duty  else- 
where. 

Q.  You  have  no  recollection  of  reporting  this  foct  to  him  particularly  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did.     He  may  have  heard  of  it  before  I  did. 

Q.  Did  not  you  report  the  fact  to  him  that  yoa  had  given  it  to  one  of  Colonel 
Baker's  detectives  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  I  did;  the  detective  came  there  after  me.     Captain 
Gleason  showed  him  where  I  was,  and  he  and  I  went  away  together. 

Q.  You  and  the  detective? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  ? 

A.  We  went  to  Winooski  Falls,  two  miles  nearly.     It  is  in  Burlington,  near 
the  village. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there  in  reference  to  this  handkerchief  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  there  in  pursuit  of  any  particular  person  ? 

A.  I  went  in  pursuit  of  Charles  Blinn. 

Q.  When  you  found  Charles  Blinn  did  Gurnett  take  down  his  statement  in 
writing  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  did ;  I  am  not  sure.     lie  may  have  done  it.     I  did  not 
see  him  do  it  at  that  time. 

Q-.  And  you  think  that  was  the  25th  of  April  ? 

A.  1  think  that  was  Tuesday,  the  25th  of  April.     Why  I  feel  so  confident  is 
from  minutes  I  took  at  the  time  from  day  to  day  of  what  I  was  doing. 

Q.  Please  turn  to  the  25th  of  April  and  see  if  you  have  a  minute  that  you 
received  the  handkerchief  on  that  day  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  have  a  minute  of  that  kind.     It  is  merely  a  minute  of 
being  with  Gurnett,  and  reads  as  follows : 

"Tuesday,  25t7i  of  April. 

George  A.  Gurnett,  Baker's  detective  from  Washington.     Went  to  Platts- 


burg  on  boat  Canada.     Came  back  on  United  States." 


Q.  Xow  turn  to  the  23d  and  see  what  entry  you  have  there,  if  anything 
in  reference  to  this  matter. 

A.  Nothing  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  You  say  you  went  from  Burlington  to  Plattsburg  on  the  boat  Canada,  and 
came  back  on  the  United  States;  are  there  two  boats? 

A.  Certainly,  there  were  more  than  two  boats  at  that  time.  One  started  from 
Rouse^'s  Point,  going  south,  and  the  other  from  White  Hall,  going  north.  Each 
boat  from  the  north  and  soutli  touched  at  Plattsburg.  W(;  went  down  on  one 
and  came  up  on  the  other.  These  were  the  two  night-line  boats,  so  called  at 
that  time. 

Q,.  The  Canada  left  White  Hall  on  the  night  of  the  25th,  and  the  United 
States  left  Rouse's  Point  the  night  of  the  25th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  at  the  same  time ;  or  the  boat  at  Rouse's  Point  may  possibly  have 
left  later,  because  they  went  further  north  than  half  way. 

Q.  Did  these  boats  run  both  on  the  nights  of  Saturday  and  Sunday  ? 


240  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  should  juflge  the  boat  starting  south  and  that  going  north  on  Saturday 
night  would  arrive  on  Sunday  morning  and  lie  over  till  Monday  night. 

Q.  I  understand  the  only  circumstance  that  enables  you  to  fix  these  dates  is 
that  you  called  on  Blinu  for  this  handkerchief,  and  that  he  told  you  his  mother 
had  not  washed  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  and  the  reason  was  on  account  of  the  sickness  of  his  brother. 

Q.  You  heard  of  the  assassination  on  Saturday  morning  at  Springfield,  Mas- 
sachusetts. When  did  you  first  hear  the  names  of  any  persons  charged  with 
complicity  in  that  assassination? 

A.  That  I  could  not  tell  you.     I  could  not  fix  any  particular  time. 

Q.  Did  not  you  hear  the  name  of  Booth  connected  with  the  assassination  at 
the  same  time  you  heard  of  the  assassination  1 

A.  Very  likely  I  did.  I  could  not  tell  you  positively  in  regard  to  that.  I 
did  not  hear  it,  I  think,  at  that  moment.  I  was  just  stepping  off  the  train  when 
the  conductor  said  "  Chapin,  our  President  is  murdered."  Said  I,  No,  you  are 
fooling."  He  said,  "  No,  it  is  so,"  and  then  turned  and  went  off  about  his  business. 
That  was  the  first  I  heard  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  you  first  heard  of  John  H.  Surratt  as  being  con- 
nected Avith  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  hearing  in  regard  to  that  any  particular  time.  I 
probably  heard  it  before  I  came  back  from  New  Haven,  and  I  may  have  heard 
it  at  New  Haven.     There  was  great  excitement  in  New  Haven  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  heard  it  before  Bliun  told  you  he  had  the  handkerchief,  didn't  you  ] 

A.  I  probably  did.     I  presume  I  must  have  heard  it. 

Q.  And  that  was  the  reason  you  wanted  to  have  that  handkerchief? 

A.  There  could  be  no  other  reason. 

Q.  And  you  think  that  was  on  Wednesday  evening,  when  you  came  down  on 
the  afternoon  train  ?  Did  you  not  also  come  down  on  the  afternoon  train  on  Sat- 
urday ? 

A.  No.  I  was  in  Burlington  on  Saturday,  and  left  with  my  own  team  on 
Sunday  ? 

Q.  You  were  then  a  detective  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  as  a  special.  As-  I  understand  the  law,  it  allows  two 
deputy  provost  marshals  in  the  district.  Captain  Gleason  had  his  complement 
of  provost  marshals,  and  he  gave  me  an  appointment  as  special.  I  was  in  the 
ofiice  most  of  the  time  when  I  was  not  away  on  business.  I  was  sent  to  New 
Haven  with  recruits  and  deserters,  and  went  wherever  I  was  ordered. 

By  Mr.  Pier  report  : 

Q.  Please  turn  to  Wednesday  and  state  what  date  it  was. 
A.  The  19th  of  April. 

By  Mr.  j\rKRRiCK: 
Q.  Did  you  go  any  further  in  pursuit  of  any  matters  connected  with  that 
handkerchief  than  simply  to  go  and  see  Blinu? 

A.  I  did  nothing  further,  only  to  deliver  it  to  Gurnett. 

^Benjamin  W.  VaiNderpoel,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  State  your  age  and  residence. 

A.  I  am  in  my  29th  year.  I  live  in  the  city  of  New  York;  was  born  and 
raised  there. 

Q.  What  was  your  father's  name  ? 

A.  Jacob  Vanderpoel. 

Q.  W^ill  you  state  where  you  were  in  the  commencement  of  the  war  ? 

A.  I  was  an  attorney  and  counsellor  at  law  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Q.  Who  were  you  with  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  241 

A.  Brown,  Hall  &:  Vanderpoc;!. 

Q.  You  were  a  counectiou  of  the  Vanderpoel  of  that  firm  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  in  New  York  now  ? 

A.  An  attorney  at  law  with  Chauncey  SchafFer,  243  Broadway. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  in  the  commencement  of  the  war  ? 

A.  Into  the  army,  in  the  oOth  New  York  volunteers. 

Q.  What  position  did  you  hold  in  the  army  ? 

A.  I  was  first  lieutenant  of  company  G  in  that  regiment. 

Q.  Were  you  captured  by  the  enemy  ? 

A.  I  was  captured  at  Ream's  station,  Virginia,  on  the  24th  of  August,  1864. 

Q.  Where  were  you  taken  after  you  were  captured  ? 

A.  I  was  taken  first  to  Richmond,  from  there  to  Salisbury,  North  Carolina, 
then  to  Danville,  and  from  Danville  back  to  Richmond  again,  when  I  was 
paroled  in  the  latter  part  of  February,  1865. 

Q.  Before  you  went  to  the  war  did  you  know  J.  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  happened  you  to  know  him  ? 

A.  He  used  to  visit  a  club  that  I  belonged  to  in  the  city  of  New  York,  nest 
to  Laura  Keen's  theatre. 

Q.  What  was  the  club  ? 

A.  The  Lone  Star  Club. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  day  of  the  assassination? 

A.  Very  well,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you? 

A.  I  was  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

Q.  How  many  days  before  the  assassination  were  you  here  ? 

A.  Three  days  before. 

Q.  How  many  days  after  ? 

A.  About  two  or  three  days  after, 

Q.  Did  you  see  John  Wilkes  Booth  on  the  14th  of  April  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  know  you  well,  and  you  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir — that  is,  he  called  me  major;  that  is  the  title  he  generally  ad- 
dressed me  by. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  more  than  once  on  that  day  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  at  least  three  times. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  see  him? 

A.  It  was  just  above  Willards'  on  the  sidewalk. 

Q.  Where  did  you  next  see  him? 

A.  The  next  place  I  saw  him  was  between  11th  and  12th,  or  between  10th 
and  11th,  on  the  left-hand  side  of  Pennsylvania  avenue,  going  from  here  to  the 
White  House. 

Q.  State  whether  you  saw  this  prisoner  on  that  day  ? 

(The  prisoner  made  to  stand  up.) 

A.  I  did  see  him  at  this  place  I  speak  of  on  the  avenue. 

Q.  AVho  did  you  see  him  with  ? 

A.  With  Wilkes  Booth,  and  two  or  three  others  in  the  party. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  they  were  doing. 

A.  They  were  sitting  around  a  round  table,  with  glasses  on  it.  This  is  all  I 
recollect  now. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  the  circumstances  of  your  seeing  him  that  day  and  what 
they  were  doing. 

A.  I  had  beeu  up  to  the  paymaster's  department  on  some  business  relating 


242  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H,    SURRATT. 

to  my  accounts.  In  coming  out,  I  came  down  the  avenue  on  the  opjiosite  side 
from  the  place  I  have  described,  and  hearing  music,  I  went  across  to  see 
what  was  going  on  at  this  place.  As  I  went  up  stairs  I  think  there  was  a  woman 
dancing  a  sort  of  ballet  dance.  There  was  a  stage  or  something  of  the  kind  in 
the  back  part  of  the  room. 

Q.  How  was  the  room  as  to  there  being  people  in  it  1 

A.  I  should  say  there  were  50  or  CO  people  there. 

Q.  Describe  the  table  where  Booth  and  Surratt  sat. 

A.  It  was  a  round  table,  as  near  as  I  can  remember,  probably  four  or  five  feet 
across, 

Q.  What  were  they  doing  ? 

A.  Apparently,  talking. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Was  the  room  light  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  plainly  ? 

A.  0,  very  plainly. 

Q.  Were  you  near  them  1 

A.  I  was  about  as  far  from  them  as  I  am  from  you  at  the  present  tioie,  (twelve 
or  fifteen  feet.) 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  clearly  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Could  there  be  any  mistake  1 

A.  There  is  no  mistake  that  I  can  see. 

Cross-examined : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  them  in  this  place  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not.     They  were  in  conversation  with  themselves. 

Q.  Booth  did  not  address  you  as  major  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  make  out  it  was  ? 

A.  It  is  hard  for  me  to  say  exactly  the  time.  I  went  to  the  paymaster's 
department  about  1  o'clock,  and  was  there  half  an  hour  or  an  hour — I  don't  know 
how  long.  I  transacted  my  business  and  came  down  the  avenue  and  went  into 
this  place. 

Q.  It  was  not  dinner  time? 

A.  I  hardly  know  what  you  call  dinner  time.     I  had  not  had  any  dinner. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  Avhether  these  gentlemen  had  anything  to  drink  there  or 
not? 

A.  I  did  not ;  I  merely,  as  I  came  into  the  place,  glanced  at  the  table  Avhere 
they  were  sitting  and  talking  the  same  as  anybody  else  would  do  while  sitting 
down  there. 

Q.  Did  you  take  anything  to  drink  while  there  1 

A.  I  don't  recollect  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Surratt  before  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  since  ? 

A.  Not  until  this  morning. 

Q.  You  have  examined  him  very  carefully  this  morning  ? 

A.  I  noticed  one  alteration.  The  goatee  he  has  on  now  he  did  not  have  on 
then. 

Q.  You  have  examined  him  carefully,  and  you  have  no  sort  of  doubt  he  was 
the  man  ? 

A.  I  have  no  sort  of  doubt  he  was  the  man  I  saw  in  that  place. 


TRIAL   OF    JOHN    IT.    SURRATT.  243 

Q.  You  saw  him  for  how  long  a  time  ? 

A.  It  may  have  been  five  or  it  may  have  been  ten  minutes. 

Q.  Then  you  stood  five  or  ten  minutes  looking  at  the  group  of  people  around 
that  table  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  stand  there  looking  particularly  at  them  1 

A.  Not  more  particularly  than  at  any  others  that  I  know  of.  I  noticed  a 
man  I  knew  and  some  people  in  his  company. 

Q.  Then  you  just  glanced  around  on  the  party  and  saw  Wilkes  Booth  and 
three  strangers  Avith  him  ? 

A.  I  looked,  not  expecting  to  find  him,  and  said  to  myself  "  Halloo,  he's  got 
up  here,"  and  looked  at  him  and  saw  two  or  three  in  his  company. 

Q.  And  you  have  daguerreotyped  that  look  in  your  mind's  eye  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Two  or  more  together? 

A.  Two  or  more  together. 

Q.  And  you  therefore  undertake  to  swear  positively  to  the  man  you  had  that 
glimpse  of? 

A.  I  undertake  to  swear  to  what  I  believe. 

Q.  You  are  as  certain  as  that  you  see  me  1 

A.  As  certain  as  that  I  see  you. 

Q.  Just  as  confident  that  you  see  the  man  you  had  that  glimpse  of  two  years 
ago  as  that  you  are  looking  at  me  now  ? 

A.  Just  as  confident. 

Q.  Who  else  was  at  the  table  1 

A.  Two  or  three  others  besides  Booth  and  this  man. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  them  ? 

A.  I  know  one  man  was  a  thick-set,  dark-complectioned  man  ;  looked  as  if  he 
was  a  Frenchman.  He  had  a  foreign  appearance  about  him — that  was  all  I 
noticed. 

Q.  You  think  you  would  recollect  that  man  if  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  I  think  I  could. 

Q.  The  other  two  you  did  not  notice  so  particularly  1 

A.  You  will  understand  that  with  men  sitting  around  a  table  I  certainly  could 
not  get  a  full  view  of  every  one  unless  I  walked  right  round  the  table.  I  had 
a  full  view  of  Booth  and  this  man,  who  were  sitting  alongside  of  each  other, 
and  that  is  the  way  I  recognized  him  so  particularly. 

Q,  This  was  between  1  and  2  o'clock  ? 

A.  It  was  some  time  in  the  afternoon ;  it  may  have  been  after  3  o'clock. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  how  this  gentleman  was  dressed  at  the  time  ? 

A.  I  cannot  describe  his  dress.  I  am  a  very  poor  observer  about  dress ;  I 
generally  observe  a  person's  featux-es,  but  not  his  clothes. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  he  was  dressed  in  light  or  black  clothes  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  Did  they  have  their  hats  on  or  not  ? 

A.  Some  did  and  some  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  his  hair,  whether  it  Avas  short  or  long  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  recollect.  1  think  his  hair  was  very  nearly  as  it  is  now, 
perhaps  a  little  longer. 

Q.  You  remember  he  had  no  goatee  ? 

A.  I  think  not ;  it  was  very  light  if  he  had  any. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  that  man  had  a  goatee  at  that  time  or  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  had. 

Q.  You  think  he  had  a  moustache  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  them  conversing  at  all  ? 


244  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A-  Not  close;  witli  fifty  or  sixty  persons  in  the  room,  all  talking,  and  tlie 
music,  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  hear  conversation. 

Q.  Did  you  bear  their  voices  at  all  1 

A.  No ;  I  could  not  even  say  that,  with  all  the  noises  going  on. 

Q.  Then  you  went  into  a  room,  saw  fifty  or  sixty  persons  sitting  around  tables 
and  a  Avoman  dancing  at  the  lower  end  of  the  hall.  You  recollect  certainly 
about  that  ? 

A.  I  recollect  about  that ;  it  was  a  novelty  to  me.  It  was  the  first  time  I 
had  ever  been  in  the  place. 

Q.  You  remember  there  was  a  woman  dancing  ? 

A.  It.  was  a  woman  or  something. 

Q.  It  was  dressed  like  a  woman  ? 

A.  It  was  dressed  like  a  woman. 

Q.  You  are  quite  distinct  about  that  ? 

A.  That  is  what  I  swear  to. 

Q.  You  are  quite  distinct  that  on  Friday,  the  day  of  the  assassination,  you 
went  in  there  and  saw  a  woman  dancing  at  the  lower  end  of  the  hall;  you  are 
very  clear  about  that. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  think  it  was  between  Tenth  and  Eleventh  or  Eleventh  and 
Twelfth  streets. 

A.  It  was  along  there ;  I  have  not  been  there  since  to  see. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  the  place  was  ?     Was  it  the  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.  Metropolitan  Hall  or  Washington  Hall,  or  something  of  that  sort,  I  could 
not  swear  positively  to  the  name. 

Q.  Who  did  you  tell  of  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  told  anybody  of  it. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  that  there  was  a  hot  pursuit  after  Surratt,  and  an 
inquiry  whether  he  was  with  Booth  or  concerned  with  Booth  on  that  day  ? 

A.  Certainly  I  do. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  tell  anybody  that  you  saw  him  and  Booth  together  that 
afternoon  1 

A.  I  did  not,  and  for  this  reason  :  After  this  affair,  a  number  of  my  fellow 
officers  who  had  been  present  with  me  in  the  city,  came  to  me  and  said,  "  Van- 
derpoel,  I  would  not  be  in  your  shoes  for  anything  in  the  world ;  you  will  lose 
your  commission."  Said  I,  "  What  for  ?  "  They  said ;  "  Because  you  were  along 
with  Booth."  I  packed  up  my  traps  and  started  for  the  army.  The  detectives 
arrested  me  just  as  I  was  getting  on  the  boat,  and  took  me  np  to  Tenth  street; 
finally  I  got  round  to  General  Augur's  office  and  explained  matters  as  well  as  I 
could,  and  went  back  to  the  army. 

Q.  Had  you  not  leave  of  absence? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  not  of  the  utmost  importance,  if  you  had  seen  Booth  and  been 
with  him  that  day,  that  you  should  have  made  it  known  ? 

A.  I  can  see  now  that  it  was ;  but  I  have  explained  what  my  motives  were 
then.  When  officers  jeered  at  me  and  told  me  they  would  not  be  in  my  shoes  for 
anything,  I  wanted  to  get  av.'ay,  and  that  was  the  reason  for  what  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  not  know  that  if  you  had  been  in  Washington  only  two  or  three 
days,  on  leave  of  absence  and  on  legitimate  business,  you  were  safe  here  ? 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  And  yet  with  this  knowledge  that  there  was  a  hot  pursuit  after  Booth  and 
all  persons  concerned  in  this  horrible  crime,  you  locked  this  information  in  your 
own  breast  and  waited  until  now  to  disclose  it. 

A.  Self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature.  I  wanted  to  take  care  of  my- 
self first. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  245 

Q.  Let  me  ask  you  whether  self-preservation  would  not  have  been  best  con- 
sulted by  giving  all  the  assistance  you  could  in  the  arrest  of  Booth  1 

A.  I  do  not  knoAV. 

Q.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  the  fact  of  your  departure,  after  having  been  seen 
with  Booth,  might  render  you  in  much  greater  danger  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  district  attorney  as  calling  for  opinions  of  witness, 
and  not  facts. 

The  Court.  The  witness  may  answer  the  question ;  it  is  not  evidence  though.) 

A.  I  think,  in  the  view  you  put  it,  it  would  have  been  better  for  me  to  come 
out  with  what  I  knew.  We  can  all  see  these  things  afterwards,  on  second 
thought.     I'robably  I  did  wrong  in  not  coming  out  and  ttdling  what  I  knew. 

Q.  When  did  you  come  out? 

A.  Now,  here,  to-day. 

Q.  AVhen  before  to-day  ? 

A.  I  have  never  said  very  much  about  it. 

Q.  Plow  was  it  known  that  you  knew  anything  about  it  ? 

A.  T  saw  the  trial  of  John  H.  Surratt  in  the  paper,  and  came  on  myself.  I 
paw  that  the  trial  was  progressing,  and  read  an  editorial  in  the  New  York 
Herald  about  it,  and  came  on. 

Q.  When  you  came  on  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  reported  myself  to  Mr.  Carriugton. 

Q.  Without  a  summons  ? 

A.  Without  a  summons. 

Q.  Now  I  understand  that  you  had  never  seen  John  H.  Surratt  before,  nor 
since,  so  far  as  you  can  recollect  ? 

A.  I  said  I  saw  him  that  particular  day;  I  did  not  say  whether  I  had  seen  him 
before  or  since. 

Q.  HdW  could  you  know  it  was  John  H.  Surratt  you  saw  there,  and  come 
and  tell  the  district  attorney  you  saw  him  there  ? 

A.  I  could  not;  I  came  on  here  to  see  if  one  of  the  men  I  saw  was  John  H. 
Surratt.  When  I  came  into  court  I  was  convinced  it  was,  and  that  is  all  I 
know  about  it. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  whole  matter  ? 

A.  That  is  the  whole  matter. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  I  want  to  know  if  there  is  a  difference  in  people  in  their  capacity  of 
remembering  faces  't 

(Question  objected  to  as  immaterial,  unless  the  witness  is  an  expert.) 

]\Ir.  PiERUEi'o.XT.  I  am  going  to  ask  whether  he  is  an  expert  in  remembering 
luiniau  faces  or  not. 

The  Court.  You  can  ask  him  Avhat  his  capacity  is  for  remembering  faces. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.XT.  I  will  ask  that  question. 

A.  I  have  very  seldom  seen  any  one  who  would  remember  faces  so  well  as  I 
do.  1  have  met  people  1  have  not  seen  in  ten  years  and  gone  up  to  them  and 
called  them  by  name. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  you  have  had  it  tested  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  have. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  have  recognized  persons  you  have  not  seen  for  ten  years  ;  did  you 
ever  recognize  a  man  you  only  had  a  glimpse  of  once  after  an  absence  of  three 
or  four  years  ? 

A.  Yes.  sir;  I  have  done  that.  I  have  recognized  people  I  have  only  been 
in  company  with  once,  fifteen,  twenty,  or  twenty-five  minutes. 

Q.  There  you  have  had  your  attention  drawn  to  them  by  conversing  with 


246  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUEEATT. 

tliem  and  seeing  their  manner.    Can  yon  recollect  any  instance  in  which  you 
have  heen  able  to  recollect  a  man  you  have  seen  casually  sitting  at  a  table,  just 
to  glance  at  him,  and  not  see  them  for  two  years  afterwards  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  known  occasions  of  that  kind. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  woman's  face  you  saw  dancing  ? 
A.  I  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  her  face ;  I  paid  much  more  attention  to 
her  legs. 

Q.  ]3o  you  think  you  would  recognize  them  if  you  were  to  see  them  1 
A.  I  do  not  think  I  would. 

Saturday,  June  22,  1867. 
The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Mrs.  Martha  Murray  sworn  and  examined;  residence,  Washington. 

By  the  District  Attorn  ky  : 

Q.  State  where  you  live. 

A.  I  stop  now  at  the  Herudon  House,  corner  of  Ninth  and  F  streets. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  at  the  Herudon  House  ] 

A.  For  ten  years,  there  in  the  house. 

Q.  What  is  your  husband's  name  ? 

A.  Patrick  Jones  Murray. 

Q.  Is  he  proprietor  of  the  Herndon  House  ? 

A.  He  was  at  that  time,  but  he  sold  out  long  ago ;  he  is  not  now. 

Q.  What  period  do  you  refer  to  when  you  say  "at  that  time?" 

A.  To  the  year  1865;  about  the  month  of  April  of  that  year. 

Q.  It  was  a  hotel  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  is  the  Herndon  House  1 

A.  At  the  southwest  corner  of  Ninth  and  F  streets,  opposite  the  Patent  Office. 

Q.  During  the  year  1865,  did  a  man  by  the  name  of  Lewis  Payne  or  "  Wood" 
board  at  that  house  1 

A.  There  was  a  man  who  stated  he  was  that  man  who  boarded  there.  I  tes- 
tified before  the  military  commission  at  the  arsenal  on  the  occasion  of  the  trial 
of  the  conspirators,  and  I  at  that  time  stated,  when  asked  about  the  man  Payne, 
that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  I  had  seen  his  (Payne's)  face  before,  and  that 
it  was  at  our  house  that  I  had  seen  it. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  remain  with  you  1 

A.  From  Friday  till  that  day  two  weeks. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  month  ?  and  if  so,  what  day  of  the  month  it  was 
that  he  left  your  house  ? 

A.  I  declare  I  cannot  tell  now.  I  gave  the  statement  on  the  occasion  of  the 
other  trial,  and  I  suppose  it  is  on  record.     I  think  it  was  on  Friday. 

Q.  Was  it  ou  "  Good  Friday,"  the  day  of  the  President's  assassination  ? 

A.  I  know  he  was  tM-o  weeks  at  our  house. 

Q.  What  month  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  before  the  assassination  of  the  President. 

Q.  How  long  before  ? 

A.  Two  weeks  before.  He  left  our  house  on  Friday,  and  it  must  have  beeu 
that  very  Friday.  It  is  on  record  there,  and  I  presume  you  can  ascertain 
from  that.     I  mean  the  day  of  the  assassination. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  object,  your  honor,  to  the  witness  stating  conclusions  from 
premises  of  her  own,  and  desire  that  she  should  be  restricted  to  facts. 

The  Court.  She  can  state  the  fact  as  to  what  day  it  was,  and  then  give  the 
reasons  why  she  believes  it  or  knows  it  to  be  that  day.  The  witness  will  pro- 
ceed. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURKATT.  247 

"WlTNKS^s.  The  day  of  the  as-sassiuatioii  this  man  was  at  otir  house.  "We 
always  had  a  four  o'clock  dinner.  He  came  into  the  sitting-room,  or  the  place 
where  persons  generally  came  in  to  pay  their  board,  and  said  that  he  wanted  to 
pay  his  bill;  that  he  was  going  away  to  Baltimore.  He  paid  his  bill,  and  I 
ordered  dinner  for  him;  or  rather,  called  the  man  and  told  him  to  have  his  din- 
ner sent  up  to  the  dining-room  earlier  than  usual.  It  was  then  three  o'clock. 
It  was  done,  and  that  was  the  last  I  saw  of  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  room  he  occupied  in  your  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  do. 

Q.  State  it. 

A.  He  occupied  the  front  room  right  on  the  corner  of  Ninth  street;  room 
called  "  No.  6." 

Q.  What  story  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  suppose  the  third  story.  The  parlor  is  on  the  second 
story,  and  it  was  the  room  over  that. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  any  one  caine  to  your  house  in  company  with  him 
when  he  first  applied  for  board  / 

A.  No  one  at  all.  It  was  to  me  he  applied.  I  was  coming  down  stairs  when 
he  came  in  and  asked  me  for  a  room.     No  one  was  with  him  at  the  time. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Surratt  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  her  coming  to  your  house  on  any  occasion  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Any  member  of  his  family  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

"William  H.  Bell,  servant — residence,  "Washington — sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Whose  servant  are  you  ? 

A.  Secretary  Seward's. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  with  Secretary  Seward  ? 

A.  Three  years. 

Q.  In  the  month  of  April,  1865,  were  you  living  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  you  remember  the  occurrence  at  ^h.  Seward's  house  on  the 
14th  of  April,  on  the  evening  of  that  day. 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  A\  ill  you  commence  at  the  beginning  and  state  what  you  saw  ? 

A.  On  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  I  Avas  in  the  house  of  Mr.  Seward,  at  the 
time  of  the  assassination.  About  a  quarter  past  ten,  I  presume  it  was,  the  bell 
rung.  I  went  to  the  door.  A  tall  and  heavy-built  man  approached.  He 
seemed  to  be  a  young  man,  so  fVu'  as  I  could  judge.  He  said  he  wanted  to  see 
Mr  Seward.  1  told  him  that  he  could  not  see  him,  from  the  very  fact  that  Mr. 
Seward  was  sick  in  bed,  and  the  orders  wore  strict  not  to  allow  any  one  to  come 
in.  He  said,  "I  am  sent  here  by  Dr.  Verdi,  Mr.  Seward's  family  physician." 
He  held  in  his  left  hand  a  little  package,  which  1  supposed  to  be  a  prescription. 
It  had  a  prescription  paper  on  it.  He  said  he  wanted  to  see  Mr.  Seward.  I 
stated  he  could  not  see  him.  He  says,  "I  must  see  him;  I  am  sent  here  by 
Dr.  "Verdi  to  let  him  know  how  to  lake  this  medicine,  and  I  must  see  him."  I 
says,  "You  cannot  see  him  by  any  means  at  all;  he  is  asleep  just  ab(mt  this 
time."  He  insisted  that  he  must  see  him.  I  spoke  rather  rough  to  him.  He 
started  to  go  up ;  and  having  spoken  rather  rough  to  him,  I  said  to  him  that  I 
hoped  he  would  excuse  me.  I  had  no  idea  then  that  he  Avas  an  assassin.  He 
spoke  rather  politely  to  me,  and  said,  "Oh,  that's  all  right."     I  told  him  that  I 


248  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT. 

was  just  doing  my  duty.  Of  course  I  had  no  right  to  insult  him,  not  knowing 
who  he  was.  He  started  up  stairs,  and  I  Avent  on  ahead  of  him.  When  he  had 
reached  the  third  story,  and  got  near  Mr.  Seward's  door,  Mr.  Frederick  Seward 
came  out  of  his  room  and  spoke  to  him.  He  told  Mr.  Frederick  that  he  wanted 
to  see  his  father ;  that  he  had  been  sent  there  by  his  family  physician.  Dr.  Verdi, 
with  a  prescription.  Mr,  Seward  went  into  his  father's  room,  and  observing  that 
he  Avas  asleep,  came  out  and  pulled  the  door  to  after  him,  and  told  this  man  that 
he  could  not  see  his  father ;  that  he  was  asleep,  and  that  he  would  give  him  the 
prescription ;  lie  would  attend  to  it.  The  man  said  that  would  not  do  ;  and 
thereupon  a  discussion  arose  between  the  two  as  to  whether  he  should  be  ad- 
mitted or  not,  Mr.  Frederick  insisting  that  he  should  not,  and  the  man  insisting 
that  he  would  see  him.  Finally,  he  commenced  talking  so  rough,  that  I  said 
to  him,  "Don't  speak  so  rough  to  that  gentleman  ;  that  is  3Ir.  Seward's  son,  the 
Assistant  Secretary,"  I  had  been  standing  by  the  side  of  the  man  all  this  time. 
He  was  very  polite  to  me,  and  said,  "I  know  that;  that  i^  all  right."  After 
awhile  he  pretended  that  he  had  come  to  the  conclusion  to  leave  the  house,  I 
suppose,  as  he  started  to  come  down  stairs,  I  got  in  front  of  him,  and  attempted 
to  lead  him  down.  He  walked  very  heavy  going  up,  and  also  coming  down. 
He  had  on  new  boots  from  all  appearances,  from  the  noise  they  made.  1  turned 
round  to  him,  after  having  come  down  three  steps,  he  behind  me,  and  said  to 
him,  "Don't  walk  so  heavy,  please."  He  replied,  "I  know  that;  that  is  all 
right."  By  the  time  I  turned  round  to  make  another  move  to  come  down  stairs, 
he  had  jumped  back,  and  had  Mr.  Frederick  by  the  collar  hitting  him  over  the 
head.  What  he  struck  him  with  I  am  unable  to  say,  but  I  think  il  was  a  knife, 
1  then  came  down  stairs  immediately,  ran  to  the  door  and  gave  the  alarm.  I 
ran  down  as  far  as  General  Augur's  office. 

Q,  Where  was  that  ? 

A,  At  the  corner  of  Fifteen-.and-a-half  street  and  Pennsylvania  avenue.  From 
the  noise  that  I  made  three  soldiers  ran  down  off  the  piazza ;  but  by  that  time 
he  had  run  out. 

Q,  You  have  stated  where  General  Augur's  headquarters  were;  will  you  now 
state  where  Mr.  Seward's  house  was  1 

A.  Mr.  Seward's  house  is  riglit  in  the  centre  of  Fifteen-and-a-half  street,  be- 
tween H  and  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  In  this  city  and  District? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  District  of  Columbia,  and  city  and  county  of  Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  what  square  does  it  front  1 

A.  It  fronts  on  ]\Iadison  square,  west  side. 

Q.  What  square  is  front  of  it  1 

A.  Lafayette  square. 

Q.  Is  there  any  statue  in  the  square? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  What  is  that  ? 

A.  Jackson  statue, 

Mr.  PiKKRL';i>()j\T.  Now  proceed  Avith  your  narrative. 

A,  After  those  three  soldiers  came  down,  as  I  was  groins'  on  to  sav,  the  assassin 
ran  out  of  the  house  and  got  on  his  horse.  When  1  came  down  from  the  stairs 
I  did  not  observe  his  horse  at  all  in  front  of  the  door.  When  he  got  on  his 
horse  these  three  soldiers  Mere  about  three  paces  behind  me,  I  hallooed,  "  There 
he  is,  getting  on  his  horse  now,"  He  got  on  his  horse  and  started  off  toward  H 
street,  1  behind  him,  and  also  these  three  soldiers.  He  kept  on  up  15^  street 
to  I,  when  I  lost  sight  of  him.  Whether  he  w  ent  out  Vermont  avenue  or 
loth  street,  I  am  unable  to  say, 

Q,  When  did  you  next  see  the  man  I 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  249 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  Avas  the  ITtli  of  April,  at  General  Augur's 
headquarters. 

Q.  Who  was  he 

A.  He  gave  his  name  as  Lewis  Payne. 

Q.  He  was  the  one  who  was  tried  as  Lewis  Payne  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  one  who  was  tried  and  convicted. 

Q.  I  do  not  remember  whether  you  picked  up  anything,  or  Avhether  it  was 
some  other  person  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;    1  did  not. 

Q.  You  neither  picked  up  a  hat  nor  a  pistol  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  but  they  Avere  both  picked  up  ia  the  house  next  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Mr.  Stanton,  the  Secretary  of  War,  showed  them  both  to  me. 

Q.  You  would  recognize  them  if  you  were  to  see  thein  again. 

A.  1  would  recognize  the  hat,  but  I  am  unable  to  say  whether  I  would  recog- 
nize the  pistol  or  not. 

Q.  After  you  went  back,  did  you  go  into  Mr.  Seward's  room  ? 

A.  After  1  came  back,  I  went  into  the  hall,  and  lirst  met  Colonel  Seward. 
He  had  a  wound  on  his  forehead  and  one  on  his  wrist,  and  was  standing  there  with 
a  pistol  in  his  hand,  .the  hall  at  the  time  being  crowded  with  people.  That  was 
not  over  two  minutes  after  the  assassin  had  left  the  house.  The  whole  occur- 
rence occupied  but  a  minute  or  so. 

No  cross-examination. 

FRhUKRiCK  W.  Seward,  Assistant  Secretary  of  State — residence,  Washing- 
ton— sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr  Pierkkpont. 

Q.  Will  you  state,  if  you  please,  Avhai  official  position  you  occupy  ? 

A.  That  of  Assistant  Secretary  of  State. 

Q.  Were  you  such  in  April,  18G5  ? 

A.  Ye?,  sir. 

Q.  In  April,  lS6o,  where  did  you  reside  ? 

A.  I  resided  with  the  Secretary  of  State,  at  Madison  Place,  where  I  do  at 
present.  ,, 

Q.  Opposite  what  square  ? 

A.  Opposite  Lafayette  square. 

Q.  What  is  the  number  '{ 

A.  I  think  there  is  no  number. 

Q.  How  is  it  with  reference  to  the  square  ? 

A.  It  is  about  opposite  the  middle  of  the  end  of  the  square. 

Q.  State  where  General  Augur's  headquarters  were  at  that  date. 

A.  General  Augur's  headquarters  at  that  time  were  in  the  next  house, 
on  the  left-hand  side.  They  were  on  the  corner  of  the  avenue  and  Madison 
Place,  or  15  i  street  as  it  is  sometimes  called. 

Q.  Close  by? 

A.  The  next  house.  The  houses  do  not  adjoin,  but  they  stand  near  each 
other. 

Q.  As  a  mere  technical  matter  I  will  ask  you  in  what  District  and  county  the 
house  was  ? 

A.  In  the  city  of  Washington,  District  of  Columbia. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Ford's  theatre,  the  place  where  the  President  was  shot  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  what  street  was  it? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  can  state  the  number  of  the  street. 

Q.  You  have  been  at  the  theatre  ? 

17 


250  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  know  its  locality,  but  I  cannot  state  wliat  street  it  is  on. 

Q.  Will  you  state  in  what  city,  district,  and  county,  the  theatre  where  the 
President  was  shot  and  killed  is  ? 

A.  In  the  same  district,  city,  and  county  that  I  have  previously  mentioned. 

Q.  City  of  "Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  where  you  were  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  1865. 

A.  I  suppose  you  have  reference  to  the  time  of  the  attempted  assassination  ? 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Yes,  sir. 

Witness,  resuming.  At  that  time  I  was  in  my  own  room,  which  adjoins  that 
of  my  father,  in  the  third  story  of  the  house. 

Q.  Will  you  please  explain  which  way  the  house  fronts  ? 

A.  The  house  fronts  towards  Georgetown. 

Q.  It  fronts  the  square  exactly  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  the  position  of  your  father's  room  in  the  third  story  1 

A.  His  was  the  front  room  in  the  third  story,  on  the  south  side. 

Q.  At  the  corner,  was  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  left-hand  corner  as  you  front  the  square.  My  room  was  on 
^he  other  side. 

Q.  Same  front? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  two  rooms  occupy  the  Avhole  width  of  the  house. 

Q.  What  was  your  father's  condition  then?  Describe  how  he  was  situated 
that  night;  and  state  where  he  was. 

A.  He  had  been  badly  injured  by  a  fall  from  his  carriage  several  days  before. 
He  had  a  fractured  arm,  and  a  fractured  jaw,  and  some  appi-ehensions  were 
entertained  that  he  might  not  recover  from  his  injuries.  He  was  under  medical 
treatment  at  the  time,  and  was  kept  as  quiet  as  possible  in  his  room. 

Q.  Will  you  state  his  condition  and  position  ia  the  bed,  whether  he  was  lying, 
or  whether  he  was  on  a  frame  work,  or  how? 

A.  He  was  usually  lying  in  a  recumbent  position,  but  generally  about  half 
raised  by  one  of  those  frame  works  which  are  made  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
sick,  and  mostly  used  in  hospitals, 

Q.  What  was  his  physical  condition  on  this  night  ? 

A.  He  had  been  very  restless  during  the  day,  and  it  had  been  difficult  to 
compose  him  to  sleep.  On  this  night  we  were  all  endeavoring  to  keep  him  as 
quiet  as  possible,  in  order  that  he  might  sleep. 

Q.  Which  arm  Avas  broken? 

A.  The  right  arm. 

Q.  Do  you  know  on  which  side  of  the  bed  he  was  lying? 

A.  He  was  lying  on  the  side  towards  the  front  of  the  hoirse. 

Q.   State  whether  that  was  the  right  side  of  the  bed. 

A.  It  was  the  right  side  of  the  bed  as  he  lay  in  it.  His  object  in  lying  there, 
as  we  understood  at  the  time,  was  to  prevent  his  broken  arm  from  coming  in 
contact  with  the  bed.  He  lay  right  on  the  edge  of  the  bed,  and  his  arm  pro- 
jected over.  During  the  day  the  nurses  were  continually  watching  to  see  that 
he  did  not  fall  from  the  bed,  as  be  insisted  on  lying  just  at  the  edge  in  order  to 
ease  this  arm. 

Q.  State  who  the  nurses  were,  and  who  were  in  the  room  at  this  time. 

A.  My  sister  was  in  the  room.  The  nurse,  George  Robinson,  was  in  the 
room  also,  when  I  left  it.  I  had,  as  I  have  before  stated,  stepped  into  my  own 
room.  From  our  anxiety  to  keep  the  sick-room  quiet,  we  had  as  few  remain  in 
there  as  possible. 

Q,  Your  sister  was  a  young  lady,  unmarried  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  she  living  ? 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  251 

A.  No,  sir;  slae  is  dead. 

Q.  Was  your  motlier  iu  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  she  was  iu  her  own  room,  I  thiuk,  though  I  did  not  see  her  at 
that  time.  Her  room  was  a  back  room  on  the  same  floor.  It  was  on  the  same 
side  of  the  house  with  my  father's  room. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Seward,  your  wife,  in  the  house  1 

A.  She  was,  and  was  iu  my  room. 

Q.  State  whether  your  mother  died  afterwards? 

A.  She  died  on  the  21st  of  June  following. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  I  would  like  to  know  where  all  this  is  to  lead,  and  what  is  the 
object  of  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.NT.  My  object  is  to  show  the  reason  wh}-^  these  parties  are  not 
called  here — to  show  that  they  are  dead. 

Q.  Will  you  state  who  else  was  in  the  house  ? 

Mr.  Bradlky.  I  presume  it  is  understood  that  all  this  examination  as  to  the 
acts  of  any  of  the  other  of  the  parties  named   in  the  indictment,  except  the  pris- 
oner, is  subject  to  our  exceptions? 
•   Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Certainly;  that  is  understood. 

Q.  Will  you  state  who  else  were  in  the  house  ? 

A.  My  brother,  Augustus  H.  Seward.     I  do  not  know  that  there  were  any . 
other  persons  at  that  time,  except  the  nurses,  servants,  and  visitors,  who  were 
coming  and  going  during  the  evening. 

Q.  Will  you  slate  all  that  occurred  on  the  evening  in  q^uestion,  as  f;ir  as  your 
memory  will  serve  you? 

A.  About  ten,  or  a  little  after  ten,  o'clock  that  evening,  I  heard  the  sound  of 
some  persons  coming  up  stairs.  1  stepped  into  the  hall  to  see  who  it  was.  At 
the  head  of  the  stairs  I  met  a  man  wearing  a  hat  with  a  light  overcoat,  well 
dressed  and  tall,  who  said  that  he  was  a  messenger  from  Dr.  Verdi.  He  either 
said  so  or  William  Bell  did.  I  cannot  now  recall  which.  William  Bell,  I 
will  state  here,  came  up  with  him.  The  man  said  that  he  was  instructed  by 
the  doctor  to  deliver  some  medicine  to  my  father,  and  to  deliver  it  personally. 
I  cannot  recall  the  words  or  expressions  that  either  of  us  used,  but  the  sub- 
stance of  the  conversation  was  that  I  told  him  that  we  were  endeavoring  to 
compose  my  father  to  sh.-ep,  and  did  not,  therefore,  want  him  disturbed,  and 
that  I  would  take  the  medicine  and  give  it  to  him.  To  that  he  replied  that  the 
doctor's  orders  were  that  he  should  see  him  personally.  I  made  objections  and 
he  insisted.  I  went  over  the  ground,  I  think,  several  times  with  him,  the  con- 
versation lasting,  perhaps,  three  or  four  minutes.  He  made  the  impression 
upon  me  of  being  a  man  rather  dull  of  comprehension,  and  as  having  no  desire 
other  than  to  obey  his  orders  literally.  Finally  I  said,  "  It  is  not  worth  while 
to  talk  any  longer  about  it ;  you  cannot  see  Mr.  Seward.  I  will  take  the 
responsibility  of  refusing  to  let  you  see  him.  Go  back  and  tell  the  doctor  that 
I  refused  to  let  you  see  him,  if  you  thiuk  you  cannot  intrust  me  with  the  medi- 
cine I  am  Mr.  Seward,  and  in  charge  here.  He  will  not  blame  you  if  you 
tell  him  I  refused  to  let  you  see  him."  He  hesitated  a  moment,  and  then  said, 
"  Very  well,  sir,  I  will  go,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  He  turned  about,  and  as  I 
supposed  proceeded  to  go  down  stairs.  He  stepped  down,  I  think,  one  or  two 
steps,  and  I  had  turned,  or  was  about  turning,  to  go  to  my  room,  when  a  noise 
behind  me  occa.-^ioned  me  to  turn  and  look  back.  I  found  that  he  had  turned 
back  and  was  springing  up  the  steps  with  a  pistol^  in  his  hands.  The  next 
moment  he  was  at  my  side,  with  the  pistol  at  my  head.  There  was  no  time  for 
thought  or  reflection.  I  remember  only  thinking  at  the  moment  that  i/iere  was 
an  additional  reason  why  he  should  not  go  in.  I  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  logically 
make  out  what  his  object  was.  I  remember  noticing  the  shape  vl'  tiie  pLstol, 
which  was  that  of  a  navy  revolver.  The  next  instant  I  heard  the  click  of 
the  lock,  and  then  remember  to  have  thought,  "  Well,  the  pistol  has  missed 


252  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

fire."  Then  instinctively  I  raised  my  Lands  to  take  hold  of  him.  A  struggle 
ensued,  and  after  that  my  recollections  became  indistinct  and  blurred,  but  as 
near  as  I  recall  I  felt  my  right-hand  pressing  against  the  "wall — I  presnme,  to 
save  myself  from  falling ;  and  that  putting  my  left-hand  to  my  head  found  a  hole  in 
my  scull.  Then,  I  suppose,  from  Ashat  I  have  learned  since — though  I  did  not 
know  it  at  that  time — that  he  got  into  my  father's  room  by  his  pushing  against 
me  and  I  against  him,  both  stumbling'  and  falling  into  the  room  together.  In 
the  room  the  gas  was  turned  low,  but  the  gas  in  the  hall  was  bright.  Having 
been  partially  stunned  by  the  blow  that  he  had  given  me,  1  have  only  an  indis- 
tinct remembrance  of  what  took  place  there,  except  that  there  was  noise  and 
confusion,  voices  and  struggling.  The  only  distinct  remembrance  that  I  have 
about  it  is,  of  seeing  two  men  lift  my  father  from  the  floor.  I  noticed  that  his 
face  was  bloody,  and  that  the  blood  Avas  streaming  from  his  throat;  and  I  heard 
one  of  the  men  say  to  the  other,  "  He  is  not  dead."  This  was  said  in  a  low 
tone  of  voice.  Then  I  turned  and  walked,  or  staggered,  to  my  own  room,  and 
met  on  the  way  my  brother  having  two  cuts  in  his  forehead,  from  wliich  I  saw 
the  blood  streaming.  I  went  back  to  my  own  room  and  laid  on  the  lounge  to 
wait  for  medical  assistance.  After  that  I  gradually  fell  into  a  coma ;  a  state  of 
stupor  came  over  me  by  degrees,  like  as  if  I  were  falling  to  sleep.  I  remember 
seeing  the  doctors  and  members  of  the  family  come  in,  but  I  found  myself 
unable  to  communicate  with  them  distinctly,  as  I  could  not  articulate.  I  saw 
nothing  further  of  the  man  who  made  the  attack,  and  have  no  distinct  recollec- 
tion of  what  happened  after  that  until  I  began  to  recover. 

Q.  You  were  not  present  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  begin  to  recover? 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  June  when  I  was  first  able  to  ride  out ;  possibly  July. 
I  think  it  was  in  October  that  1  was  first  able  to  resume  my  duties  and  go  to  the 
State  Department. 

No  cross-examination. 

William  Bell  recalled. 

By  the  District  Attorxey  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  saw  the  horse  of  which  you  have  spoken  as 
having  been  mounted  by  the  assassin  as  he  left  the  house  ? 

A.  I  saw  the  hoi'se,  but  have  a  very  poor  recollection  of  him.  So  far  as  I 
could  judge  of  him  that  night,  he  was  a  dark  bay  horse,  and  very  stout.  He 
seemed  to  start  off  in  a  pace  in  the  first  place,  and  did  not  seem  to  go  very  fast 
until  he  got  to  I  street. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  afterwards  ? 

A.    No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mrs.  Frederick  W.  Seward — residence,  Washington — sworn  and  exam- 
ined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  :  i 

Q.  You  are  the  wife  of  Mr.  Frederick  W.  Seward  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  a  view  of  letting  you  go  as  soon  as  possible,  I  will  direct  your  at 
tention  at  once  to  the  scene  in  the  house  of  your  father-in-laM%  on  the   14th  of 
April,  1865.     Do  you  remember  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  well. 

Q.  Will  you  give  a  description  of  what  you  saw  1 

A.  When  I  went  from  my  room  into  the  hall  I  found  a  man 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  time  in  the  evening  it  was  ? 

A.  Between  10  and  a  quarter  past.  When,  as  I  say,  I  went  from  my  room 
into  the  hall,  I  found  a  man  and  Mr.  Seward  in  the  entry.  Mr.  Seward  was 
holding  the  door  of  his  father's  room.     This  man  had  hold  of  Mr.  Seward  with 


TRIAL  OF  JOnX  H.  SUKRATT.  253 

one  arm,  puglung  him,  and  with  the  other  pusliing  the  door.  Just  as  I  looked 
at  them  the  doDi"  burst  open,  and  they  both  went  into  the  room.  I  followed 
them  in.  The  room  was  quite  dark.  The  next  thing  I  saw  was  a  man  jump- 
ing on  the  bed  where  the  Secretary  of  l^tate  was  lying. 

Q.  When  you  say  the  room  was  quite  dark,  do  you  mean  to  say  that  there 
was  no  light  ? 

A.  There  was  one  burner  lit,  but  the  gas  was  turned  down  very  low,  and 
there  was  a  shade  in  front  of  it.  The  next  thing  I  saw  was  men  fighting  at 
the  foot  of  the  bed,  as  if  they  were  preventing  some  one  from  going  round  to 
the  other  side  of  it.  The  head  of  the  bed  stood  against  the  wall.  Then  there 
was  a  rush  out  of  the  room.  My  sister,  Miss  Seward,  said  to  me,  "  Don't  let 
them  carry  father  off!" 

Q.  That  was  your  husband's  sister  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  went  to  find  where  Mr.  Seward  was.  Around  on  the  other  side 
of  the  bed  I  found  him  lying  on  the  floor,  covered  up  Avith  the  bed-clothes. 
Soon  after  some  one  came  to  pick  him  up,  and  I  went  to  look  for  Mr.  Frederick 
Sewai'd.  I  found  him  leaning  against  the  door  that  goes  into  the  hall,  bleeding 
profusely.  As  he  was  very  badly  hurt,  I  took  him  into  the  hall,  and  from 
there  into  his  room.  He  then  walked  across  the  room  and  threw  himself  upon 
the  lounge,  and  there  he  remained  most  of  the  night. 

Q.  "Will  you  state  what  physicians  came  1 

A.  Dr.  Norris,  Surgeon  General  Barnes,  Dr.  Verdi,  and  Di*.  Wilson. 

Q.  Do  yon  remember  which  doctor  came  first  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  Dr.  Verdi ;  he  and  Dr.  Norris  came  about  the  same  time. 

Q.  What  became  of  your  husband  after  that  1 

A.  He  never  spoke  ;  never  articulated  distinctly  for  a  long  time  after  that. 

Q.  How  long  before  he  was  able  to  speak  ? 

A.  *About  three  weeks,  I  should  say ;  except,  perhaps,  to  say  "  yes  "  or 
"  no." 

Q.  What  physician  attended  your  father  and  your  husband  1 

A.  Dr.  Norris  was  attending  Mr.  Seward,  my  father,  and  Dr.  Wilson  had 
special  cliarge  of  my  husband. 

Q.  Was  Dr.  Verdi  likewise  the  attendant  physician  of  your  father  at  that  time  I 

A.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  his  wounds. 

Q.  But  I  mean  before  the  assassination  was  attempted? 

A.  He  was  the  family  physician. 

Q.  Did  Surgeon  General  Barnes  continue  to  attend  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  else  was  in  the  room  besides  your  sister-in-law  when  you  got  there  ? 

A.  A  nurse  by  the  name  of  Rubiuson. 

Q.  What  is  his  iirst  name  ? 

A.  I  think,  George. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Colonel  Seward  there  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him  in  the  room.  I  saw  him  up  stairs  after  Payne  had 
left.       ^  .        ^  ^ 

Q.  What  was  his  condition  ? 

A.  He  had  a  cut  across  his  forehead. 

Q.  Any  other  cut  ? 

A.  A  slight  one  on  his  hand. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  assassin  afterwards  I 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  go  down  stairs,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  know  nothing  about  his  riding  away  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

No  cross-examination. 


254  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SUERATT. 

Augustus  H.  Seward,  colonel  United  States  army — residence,  Washington — 
sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo.\t  : 

Q.  Yoii  are  the  son  of  the  Secretary  of  State  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  where  you  were  on  the  night  of  the  14tb  of  April,  1865, 
when  the  attempt  was  made  on  your  father's  life  ? 

A.  I  Avas  at  my  father's  house,  in  this  city,  on  that  night. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  you  saw  1 

A.  I  retired  to  bed  that  evening  about  half  past  reven,  with  the  understand- 
ing that  I  would  be  called  about  11  o'clock  to  sit  up  with  my  father.  I  very 
shortly  fell  asleep,  and  so  remained  imtil  awakened  by  the  screams  of  my  sister. 
Then  I  jumped  out  of  bed. 

Q.  That  sister  has  since  died  1 

A  Yes,  sir.  I  then  jumped  out  of  bed,  and  went  into  my  father's  room,  in 
my  shirt  and  drawers. 

Q,  What  did  you  see  ? 

A.  The  gas  was  turned  down  rather  low  in  the  room,  and  I  saw  at  the  foot 
of  father's  bed  what  appeared  to  be  two  men,  the  one  trying  to  hold  the 
other. 

Q.  Was  this  sister  there  still  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  her  then.  I  understand  from  other  persons  who  saw  hei', 
that  she  was  there.  I  seized  the  person  who  was  held,  by  the  clothes  on  his 
breast,  supposing  it  was  my  father  delirious;  but  on  taking  hold  of  him,  I 
knew  from  his  size  and  strength  it  was  not  him.  The  thought  then  struck  me 
that  perhaps  it  was  the  nurse  who  had  become  delirious,  sitting  up  in  the  room, 
and  was  striking  about  at  random.  Knowing  the  delicate  state  of  my  father,  I 
shoved  him  towards  the  door,  with  the  intention  of  getting  him  out  of  the  room. 
While  shoving  him,  he  struck  me  five  or  six  times  on  the  forehead  and  the  top 
of  my  head,  with  what  I  supposed  to  be  a  bottle  or  decanter  that  he  had 
seized  from  the  table,  and  during  this  time  he  said,  in  an  intense  but  not  a  loud 
voice,  "  I  am  mad  ;  I  am  mad."  On  reaching  the  door  that  went  into  the  hall, 
he  gave  a  sudden  turn,  sprung  away  fiom  me,  and  disappeared  down  stairs. 
When  he  came  within  range  of  the  light  in  the  liall,  Avhich  was  bright,  I  saw 
that  he  was  a  large  man,  with  dark  straight  hair,  smooth  face,  and  no  beard ;  I 
had  at  the  same  time  a  view  of  the  expression  of  his  countenance. 

Q,.  Did  you  see  him  afterwards  1 

A.  I  saw  him  the  day  after  he  was  taken  on  board  the  Monitor. 

Q.  And  who  was  it  ? 

A.  He  answered  in  description  the  same  person  in  every  way  that  I  had  seen 
on  that  night. 

Q.  What  was  his  name  1 
.  A.  Lewis  Payne,  he  was  called. 

Q.  These  blows  of  which  you  have  spoken — what  effect  had  they  on  you  ? 

A.  They  were  not  serious;  only  flesh  wounds. 

Q.  Were  you  cut  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  I  had  some  three  cuts  on  my  forehead ;  some  three  more  on  the  top  of 
my  head,  and  one  on  my  left  hand. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  what  the  cixts  were  made  with  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  at  the  time.     I  supposed  then  it  was  done  with  a  bottle. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  so  now  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not,  since  I  have  learned  what  happened. 

Q.  What  further  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  255 

A.  After  he  went  down  t^tairs  I  went  in  my  room  and  got  a  pistol,  which  I 
had,  and  ran  down  to  the  front  door.  While  I  was  standing  there  the  servant 
boy  came  back  and  said  the  person^ 

Ml-.  Merrick.  Never  mind  what  he  said. 

Q.  Was  it  or  not  William  Bell  1 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  What  further  did  you  see  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  anything  further  of  the  man  down  there,  who  made  the  attack, 
because  he  was  gone.     The  first  thing  I  saw  was  the  servant  boy, 

Q.  Did  you  see  Doctors  Verdi  and  Barnes  there  ? 

A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  How  soon  afterwards  1 

A.  AVhile  I  was  down  there,  I 'sent  some  persons  after  the  doctors. 

Q.  How  soon  did  they  come  1 

A.  Well,  Dr.  Verdi  was  the  first  one  who  came. 

Q.  State  as  to  the  promptness  with  which  he  came. 

A.  I  think  they  were  all  there  within  three-qxtarters  of  an  hour, 

Q.  How  soon  after  the  occurrence  before  Dr.  Verdi  came  ? 

A.  I  should  say  twenty  minutes  after. 

No  cross-examination. 

James  L.  Maddox,  property  man,  Holiday  Street  theatre — residence,  Balti- 
more— sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  At  present  in  Baltimore, 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  in  Baltimore  ? 

A.  Two  years  this  Aixgust. 

Q.  ^^'hat  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Property  man,  Holiday  Street  theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  live  in  this  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  ? 

A.  It  has  been  two  years  since  I  moved  from  here  to  Baltimore, 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Washington  city? 

A.  About  sixteen  years. 

Q,  State  what  your  business  was  in  this  city. 

A.  Property  man. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  At  Ford's  theatre,  in  Washington,  on  Tenth  street,  in  this  city  and  Dis- 
trict. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  as  the  property  man  at  Ford's  theatre  on  the  14th  of 
April,  1865  1 

A.  I  was, 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  at  the  theatre  that  night  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  theatre  were  you  in  at  about  10,  or  between  the  hours 
of  10  and  11  ? 

A,  I  was  on  the  stage. 

Q.  Engaged  in  your  duties  there  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  hearing  the  report  of  a  pistol  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  State  about  what  time  that  was  ? 

A,  About  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  past  ten,  I  think.     I  would  not  say  positively. 


256  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  or  heard  anything,  before  hearing  the  report  of  the  pistol, 
that  attracted  your  attention  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  you  heard  this  report  1 

A.  I  was  on  the  left-hand  side  of  the  stage,  and  first  entrance  ;  the  same  side 
the  President  was  sitting  on. 

Q,  Who  was  standing  near  at  that  time  1 

A.  That  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  about  what  part  of  the  play  you  heard  this  report  ? 

A.  It  was  in  the  third  act. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  who  were  on  the  stage  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Harry  Hawk,  the  comedian. 

Q.  What  character  did  he  take  in  the  play  ? 

A.  Asa  Trenchard. 

Q.  Was  he  the  only  one  on  the  stage  at  that  time  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  At  that  time  did  you  observe  any  of  the  other  actors  or  actresses  ? 

A.  I  could  have  seen  them  if  I  had  taken  notice.  I  did  not  take  notice  of 
them  at  all. 

Q.  Could  you  state  their  relative  positions  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Withers,  the  leader  of  the  orchestra  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  about  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not  see  him  on  the  stage  that  night  at  all. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  you  did  after  you  heard  the  report  of  a  pistol  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  As  soon  as  I  heard  the  report  of  the  pistol,  I  stepped  back 
from  where  I  was,  and  saw  a  person  run  out  of  the  first  entrance  on  the  right-hand 
side,  opposite  where  I  was,  and  then  heard  some  person  halloo  for  water.  I 
then  run  to  my  property  room  just  off  the  stage,  and  got  a  pitcher,  and  carried 
it  and  gave  it  to  an  ofiicer.  There  was  a  police  officer  trying  to  get  up  into  the 
box,  and  he  handed  the  water  up.     I  did  not  know  then  what  had  happened, 

Q,  After  you  gave  him  the  water,  state  what  you  next  did  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect.  I  have  often  tried  to  recollect  what  I  did  do  then,  but 
I  was  so  excited,  as  was  everybody,  that  I  cannot  recall. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  the  President  after  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  after  that. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  time  it  was  that  the  President  entered  the  theatre 
that  night  ? 

A.  1  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  hearing  loud  applause  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  Was  your  attention  attracted  by  that  at  any  time  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  after  the  curtain  was  up.  I  went  into  the  first  entrance  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  a  look  at  the  President,  as  we  always  did. 

Q.  How  long  was  that  before  you  heard  the  report  of  the  pistol? 

A.  About  an  hour  and  three-quarters,  or  two  hours  ;  I  could  not  say  for  cer- 
tain. 

Q.  Where  were  you  standing  at  that  time? 

A.  (No  response.) 

Q.  From  what  point  in  the  theatre  did  you  get  an  observation  ? 

A.  The  first  entrance  on  the  right-hand  side — right  opposite  from  where  the 
President  was  sitting. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  box  that  he  occupied  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  257 

A.  It  was  on  the  left-liand  side  of  tlie  stage.  On  the  right-hand  side  going 
in  from  the  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  AVas  it  the  next  one  to  the  stage  ? 

A.  It  was  a  double  box.  It  was  turned  into  a  single  box  that  night,  how- 
ever. The  partition  was  taken  out  of  it.  It  was  the  next  one  to  the  stage  by 
being  made  a  single  box. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  President  was  coming  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  it  ? 

A.  I  heard  the  treasurer  of  the  theatre  say  so. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  the  box  prepared  for  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  whom  ? 

A.  I  saw  H.  Clay  Ford  dressing  the  box. 

Q.  Who  was  Mr.  Ford  ? 

A.  Treasurer  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  being  brought  to  the  theatre  for  the  purpose  of 
decorating  the  box  ? 

O 

A.  I  brought  two  American  flags,  with  which  to  help  decorate  it. 
Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  a  chair  being  brought  there  ? 
A.  I  recollect  seeing  the  chair  brought  down  to  go  into  the  box. 
Q.  Was  it  generally  known  that  this   theatre  had  been  decorated  and  pre- 
pared 1 

]\[r.  Bradley.  How  can  he  answer  that. 

The  District  Attorney.  You  knew  the  fact  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  known  him  1 

A.  I  had  known  him  for  about  three  years  before  the  assassination. 

Q.  Was  he  connected  with  the  corps  of  actors  at  Ford's  theatre  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  Had  you  seen  John  Wilkes  Booth  on  the  14th  of  April  1 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  Where  had  you  seen  him  ? 

A.  In  front  of  the  theatre,  and  in  the  restaurant  next  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  first  see  him  in  front  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  somewhere  about  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  On  foot  or  horseback  ? 

A.  On  horseback. 

Q.  What  restaurant  do  you  allude  to  1 

A.  Ur.  Taltavul's. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  him  in  company  with  Mr.  James  Ferguson  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  sec  him  in  front  of  Mr.  Ferguson's — Booth  1 

A.  No,  sir.     I  saw  him  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  time  you  had  seen  him  ? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Where  did  you  next  see  him  ? 

A.  In  the  restaurant. 

Q.  Whose  restaurant  ? 

A.  Messrs.  Tallavul  &  Grillo's. 

Q.  What  time  was  that  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Was  it  after  dark  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  before  dark  ? 


258  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  front  of  the  theatre,  or  at  either  one  of  these  restau 
rants  afterwards  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  him  again. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Booth  kept  his  horse  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  Down  the  alley  back  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  State  how  far  from  the  theatre  it  is. 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  distance. 

Q.  Point  out  some  object  in  this  room. 

A.  Longer  than  the  length  of  this  court-room. 

Q.  Whose  property  was  this  ?  •    . 

A.  It  was  a  Mrs.  Davis's ;   I  had  the  renting  of  it. 

Q.  Who  rented  or  leased  this  stable  to  Booth? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  collect  the  rent  for  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  §5  a  month. 

Q.  How  many  stalls  were  there  in  this  stable  ? 

A.  Two,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

Q.  How  long  before  the  assassination  was  it  that  he  engaged  this  stable  of 
you  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  in  December. 

Q.  Was  he  in  the  habit  of  keeping  his  horse  there? 

A.  He  had  a  horse  and  buggy  there. 

Q.  Only  one  horse? 

A.  That  is  all. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  him  there  regularly  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  attended  to  his  horse  there  ? 

A.  I  know  him  by  his  nick-name,  "Peanut  John." 

Q.  You  know  him  by  sight  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  "  Peanut  John"  that  night  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  hour  in  the  night  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  nearly  all  the  time.     He  attended  at  the  stage  door,  to  keep 
strangers  off"  the  stage. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  seeing  him  in  company  with  Booth  that  night? 

A.  No,  sir. 

(The  witness  pointed  out,  on  a  diagram  handed  to  him,  the  exact  position  of 
the  stable.     He  designated  the  locality  of  the  same  with  a  red  pencil  mark.) 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  were  your  duties  in  the  theatre  that  night  ? 

A.  I  was  property  man. 

Q.  Did  your  duties  require  you  to  be  on  the  stage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  Spangler's  duties  in  the  theatre  that  night  ? 

A.  He  was  a  carpenter.     He  ran  the  flaps. 

Q.  Shifting  the  scenes  you  mean  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  had  one  side  of  the  stage  to  attend  to. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Spangler  on  the  stage  that  night? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  he  on  the  stage  all  the  time  during  the  play  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  he  was  there  all  the  time  during  the  play  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  259 

A.  I  am ;  I  spoke  to  him  about  three  miuutes  before  I  heard  this  pistol-shot 
fired. 

Q.  What  would  have  been  the  effect  of  bis  absence  from  the  stage  during  the 
progress  of  the  play  ? 

A.  He  would  have  been  very  apt  to  have  been  missed,  because  there  was  no 
.  person  there  to  have  changed  the  scenes  for  him. 

Q.  Are  there  many  scenes  in  the  "American  Cousin"  in  the  way  Miss  Keene 
plays  it  ? 

A.  About  seven,  I  think,  in  the  last  act. 

Q.  How  many  acts  were  there? 

A.  Three. 

Q,  How  many  scenes  in  the  other  acts? 

A.  Two  in  the  second,  and  four  or  five,  I  cannot  say  which,  in  the  first, 

Q.  How  long  does  the  third  act  last? 

A.  That  I  could  U'tt  say. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  third  act  did  you  hear  the  pistol-shot? 

A.  I  think  it  was  the  second  scene. 

Q.  Can  you  give  an  approximate  idea  of  how  long  it  lasts — the  third  act? 

A.  A  half  an  hour,  I  think. 

Q.  If,  in  the  course  of  that  half  hour,  Spangler  had  been  absent  from  the 
stage,  it  would  have  produced  confusion,  as  I  understand  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  Spangler  wearing  a  moustache? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  AVhat  time  in  the  day  did  you  hear  the  President  was  coming  to  the  theatre? 

A.  Between  12  and  1. 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  what  time  he  determined  to  come,  or  it  was  understood 
he  was  to  come.     I  mean  at  what  time  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  Between  12  and  1  o'clock  I  heard  it. 

Q.  You  were  about  the  theatre  all  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  duties  required  you  there  morning  and  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Spangler  in  front  of  the  theatre  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  What  was  your  position  just  before,  or  at  the  moment  of  hearing  the  pistol- 
shot  ? 

A.  I  did  not  have  any  particular  position. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whereabouts  you  were  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  The  first  entrance,  on  the  left  hand.     The  same  side  the  President's  box 
was  on. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  crossing  the  theatre  and  stage  shortly  before  you  heard 
the  shot  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  before  ? 

A.  About  three  miuutes,  I  think. 

Q.  Who  did  you  observe  in  crossing  the  stage  on  that  occasion,  about  three 
minutes  before  you  heard  the  pistol-shot  ? 

Witness.  Behind  the  scenes  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  recollect  of  Spangler  being  there,  because  I  spoke  to  him  as  I  crossed. 
*       Q.  And  was  he  in  his  place  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


260  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H,    SUEKATT. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  were  on  the  stage  all  the  time  that  the  play 
was  progressing,  or  oflF  of  it  at  any  time  1 

A.  I  was  in  front  of  the  house  during  the  second  act. 

Q.  You  were  on  the  stage  during  the  third  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  progress  of  the  third  act  did  you  resume  your  place, 
on  the  stage  ? 

A.  I  was  on  the  stage  when  the  curtain  went  up. 

Q.  During  the  second  act  where  were  you  ? 

A.  During  the  second  act  I  went  in  front  of  the  house. 

Q.  That  is,  the  last  part  of  the  second  act  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  in  front  of  the  house  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Spangler  in  front  of  the  house  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     From  my  recollection,  I  never  saw  him  before. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  there  that  looked  like  the  prisoner  at  the  bar '? 

A.  I  might  have  seen  folks  there,  but  I  did  not  take  notice  of  them  so  well 
as  to  recognize  them. 

Q.  If  you  had  ever  seen  Spangler  there  in  front  of  the  house,  you  would  have 
noticed  it,  would  you  not  ? 

A.  I  would. 

Q.  You  knew  what  Spauglei's  particular  duties  were,  of  course  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  Spangler  in  front  of  the  house  during  the  second  act,  would 
not  your  knowledge  of  his  duties  on  the  stage  have  attracted  your  particular 
attention  to  him  in  that  place  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  would. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  see  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

George  T.  Robinson,  private  eighth  Maine  volunteers — residence,  Isle  Au 
Haut,  Aroostook  county,  Maine — sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  State  to  the  jury,  if  you  please 

Mr,  Merrick.  Does  this  examination  relate  to  the  attempted  assassination  of 
Mr.  Seward  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  It  does. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  wish  to  call  your  honor's  attention  to  an  objection  which 
we  have  before  suggested,  and  I  do  so  merely  for  the  purpose  of  having 
it  distinctly  placed  ujjon  the  records.  I  deem  it  necessary  to  do  so,  because 
I  cannot  see  how  far  this  is  going,  and  where  it  is  to  end.  I  must  say,  sir, 
that  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  of  the  case  of  my  learned  brothers  on  the 
other  side,  this  examination  seems  to  me  to  be  but  a  useless  consumption  of  time 
Sergeant  Robinson's  testimony  relates  to  the  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  J^eeretary 
of  State,  made  by  Lewis  Payne.  This  indictment  is  for  the  murder  of  Lincoln, 
and  the  charge  of  a  conspiracy  is  a  c(mspiracy  to  kill  Mr.  Lincoln.  Now  what 
the  attempted  killing  of  the  Secretary  of  State  may  have  to  do  either 
with  the  substance  of  the  charge  in  the  indictment,  or  with  the  conspiracy 
that  is  spoken  of  in  the  indictment  as  the  inducement,  I  cannot  perceive. 
I  do  not  propose  to  argue  the  question,  your  honor,  but  simply  to  submit  it  to 
the  court  in  a  more  specific  shape  than  has  yet  been  done  this  morning.  I 
repeat,  the  indictment  is  for  the  murder  of  Mr.  Lincoln  ;  the  conspiracy  charged 
in  the  indictment  is  a  conspiracy  to  murder  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  nothing  else. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  2G1 

There  is  not  a  word  iu  it  with  regard  to  j\Ir.  Seward  or  anybody  else  but 
Mr.  Lincohi,  and  what  the  killing  of  other  parties,  or  the  attempted  killing  of 
other  parties,  not  named  in  the  indictment,  has  to  do  with  the  charge  named 
therein  I  cannot  perceive. 

The  District  Attorney.  If  your  honor  desires  to  hear  argument  I  will 
proceed  ;  but  I  deem  it  hardly  necessary  to  say  anything  in  view  of  the  evidence 
before  the  court,  and  what  we  have  repeatedly  said  we  expect  to  show. 

The  CoLRT.  I  suppose  it  is  understood  that  the  prosecution  expect  to  show 
that  the  attempted  assassination  of  the  Secretary  of  State  is  a  part  and  parcel 
of  the  same  plot  and  conspiracy  which  resulted  in  the  taking  of  the  life  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  If  they  do  not  show  this,  then,  of  course,  the  evidence  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  relevant,  and  will  have  to  be  ruled  out.  I  thought  such  was  the 
understanding  on  all  sides. 

Mr.  PiKRRKPONT.  Certainly  it  was. 

The  Court.  You  may  go  on  with  the  examination  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  jVIerrick.  Of  course,  sir,  as  we  have  before  stated,  we  i-eserve  an  excep- 
tion. My  only  purpose  was  to  have  our  objection  clearly  appear  on  the 
record. 

Examination  of  witness  by  District  Attornev  : 

Q.  State  where  you  live. 

A.  I.-^le  Au  Haut,  Aroostook  county,  Maine. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  there  ? 

A.  About  fourteen  years. 

Q.  Which  is  your  native  State  ? 

A.  Maine. 

Q.  You  are  a  married  man  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  you  were  in  the  city  of  Washington  in  the  year  1865. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  how  you  happened  to  come  here. 

A.  I  was  a  soldier  in  the  eighth  Maine  volunteers,  and  being  wounded  was  sent 
to  Douglas  Ilospital  fir  treatment.  1  was  wounded  in  May,  1864,  and  sent  to 
Point  Lookout,  and  from  thence  to  Douglas  Hospital  for  treatment. 

Q.  You  were  a  private  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  private  in  company  B,  eighth  Maine  volunteers. 

Q.  How  long  had  you  been  in  the  army  before  you  were  wounded  1 

A.  About  nine  month-^. 

Q.  State  if  you  were  at  the  house  of  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  14th  of 
April,  186.5  ;  and  if  so,  in  what  capacity  you  were  there. 

A.  I  was  there  as  a  nurse  to  ]Mr.  Seward. 

Q.  Wliatwas  the  matter  with  Mv.  Seward  at  that  time? 

A.  He  had  been  injured  by  being  thrown  from  a  cai-riage. 

Q.  And  you  were  there  as  nurse  '^ 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  occurred  in  that  house  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April. 

A.  Somewhere  about  10  o'clock — a  little  before  or  after — a  man  came  to  the 
house. 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  afterwards  saw  that  man  ?  and  if  so,  where  you  saw 
him  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  the  next  time  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  at  the  arsenal. 

Q.  State  who  he  was. 

A.  Lewis  Payne. 

Q.  Now  commence  and  state  distinctly  all  that  happened  from  the  time  that 
man  came  to  the  house  till  he  left. 

A.  It  was  somewhere  about  10  o'clock  when  the  affair  happened.     The  com 


2f)2  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

pany  and  all  the  members  of  the  family,  except  Miss  Fannie,  had  retired.  She 
and  I  alone  remained  in  the  room.  I  had  been  detailed  there  in  connection  with 
a  fellow-soldier  as  night  nurse,  and  by  request  I  sat  up  the  fore  part  of 
the  night.  About  half  an  hour  after  the  family  had  retired,  my  attention  was 
attracted  by  some  one  coming  up  the  stairs  rapidly,  and  stepping  very  hea^nly, 
so  much  so  that  Miss  Fannie  made  the  remark,  "  I  wonder  who  is  coming  now. 
I  should  think  some  one  who  was  not  very  careful  for  one  approaching  a  sick- 
room." In  the  hall,  near  the  door  of  the  Secretary's  room,  he  met  Mr.  Freder- 
ick W.  Seward.  Whether  Mr.  Seward  was  called  out  of  his  room  or  came  out 
on  hearing  the  man  come  up  I  cannot  say.  At  any  rate  he  met  him.  They 
had  some  conversation  in  the  hall,  which  lasted  several  minutes.  After  they 
had  been  talking  a  minute  or  so  Mr.  Frederick  Seward  opened  the  door  of  the 
Secretary's  room,  came  in,  looked  at  Mr.  Seward,  who  was  asleep,  and  made 
the  remark,  "  Father  appears  to  be  asleep  ;  I  guess  I  won't  have  him  disturbed 
at  present."  He  then  turned  round  and  went  out.  He  left  the  door  open  sev- 
eral inches  when  he  came  in.  When  he  went  out  he  shut  it  entirely  to.  After 
he  went  out  Miss  Fannie  went  and  looked  out  of  the  door,  a  minute,  perliaps, 
then  turned  round,  leaving  the  door  partially  open,  came  back,  and  then  again 
went  and  looked  out.  She  then  closed  the  door,  and  went  and  sat  down.  Just 
as  she  was  in  the  act  of  sitting  down  I  heard  a  disturbance  in  the  hall,  sounding 
like  one  person  striking  another  with  a  ratan  cane,  which  I  supposed  was  the 
case.  1  sprung  up  and  went  and  opened  the  door  to  see  what  the  difficulty 
was.  I  saw  a  man,  whom  I  afterwards  recognized  as  Lewis  Payne,  right  close 
up  to  the  door,  and  right  behind  him  Mr.  Frederick  Seward,  bleeding  very  pro- 
fusely from  the  head.  At  the  same  instant  I  discovered  the  flash  of  a  knife 
aimed  at  me,  which  I  warded  off  to  some  extent,  it  striking  me  on  the  forehead 
and  partially  prostrating  me  on  the  floor. 

Q.  Is  there  a  scar  on  your  forehead  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  right  on  the  edge  of  my  hair,  here.  He  pushed  the  door  wide 
open,  and  then  entered  the  room,  making  a  bound  for  Mr.  Seward's  bed.  Mr. 
Seward  lay  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  bed  from  the  side  which  was  next  to  tlie 
door  where  Payne  entered.  He  got  to  the  edge  of  the  bed,  and  placing  his 
hand  on  Mr.  ScAvavd's  breast,  struck  at  his  neck  with  the  knife  which  he  had. 
Before  this,  however,  as  he  passed  me,  near  where  I  had  partially  fallen,  he 
met  Miss  Fannie.  She  had  sprung  iip  about  the  same  time,  I  presume,  and  met 
him  about  there.  When  he  came  in  he  had  his  hand  behind  him.  As  soon  as  he  met 
her  he  brought  his  arm  round  and  punched  her  out  of  the  way,  nearly  punching 
her  over  me.  She  stopped  where  he  had  shoved  her  to,  and  turned  round  and 
looked  at  him  till  she  saw  him  go  to  the  bed,  and  make  a  blow  at  her  father. 
She  then  hallooed  "  murder,"  and  ran  out  into  the  hall,  and  cried  out  that  there 
was  some  one  trying  to  kill  her  father.  She  came  back  into  the.  room,  and 
went  to  the  window  next  to  the  avenue — next  to  where  the  provost  marshal's 
ofiice  then  was — which  I  had  shoved  up  some  eight  or  ten  inches,  and  which 
she  shoved  clear  up,  and  then  hallooed  the  same  out  there.  After  that  I  do 
not  know  what  she  did,  or  where  she  went.  After  I  was  knocked  partially 
down,  I  jumped  to  my  feet  as  quickly  as  possible,  and  while  I  was  doing  that 
Payne  had  struck  two  or. three  times  at  Mr.  Seward,  without  hitting  him.  Be- 
fore I  got  to  him,  however,  he  had  cut  the  right  side  of  his  face.  I  looked  for 
something  with  which  to  strike  Payne,  but  saw  nothing  in  the  room  that  I  could 
handle  that  was  large  enough  to  be  of  any  service.  I  then  jumped  on  the  bed 
with  the  intention  of  striking  him ;  but  wiien  I  got  there  his  arm  was  ready 
raised  for  another  blow.  I  caught  him  round  the  arms  from  behind,  and  v.diile 
I  was  doing  this  he  cut  him  on  tlie  (left)  side  of  his  neck.  As  he  was  coming 
off  the  bed  he  reached  the  knife  over  his  shoulder,  I  being  behind  him,  and 
struck  it  into  my  shoulder  to  the  bone,  twice.  We  came  off  on  the  floor.  He 
got   his   arm  around  my  neck,  and  struck  me  two  or  three  times  under  the 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SUERATT.  263 

ear  with  the  butt  of  his  revolver,  but  he  was  in  such  a  position  that  he  couhl  no 
hurt  me.  He  then  dropped  that,  and  took  hohl  of  me,  and  then  took  liis  knife 
to  strike  into  my  breast  or  bowels.  "While  he  was  doing  this,  we  became  clenched 
together,  face  to  face.  I  then  tried  to  throw  him  over  my  hip  on  his  back,  but 
my  leg  being  wounded,  it  Avas  not  strong  enough  to  stand  under  tlie  heft  of  both 
of  us.  I  succeeded,  however,  in  getting  the  knife  where  he  couldn't  use  it.  He 
then  tried  to  get  me  by  the  throat,  and  I  tried  the  same  by  him,  and  succeeded 
so  far  as  to  get  my  hand  under  his  jaw.  My  object  was  to  get  such  a  hold  on 
him  that  I  could  in  some  way  get  him  out  into  the  hall,  and  pitch  him  over  the 
banistei's.  I  thought  that  would  be  the  best  way  to  get  rid  of  him.  Before  I 
got  to  the  door  another  person  clenched  him  from  behind.  The  room  was  rather 
dark,  and  I  could  not  see  who  it  was,  and  so  I  kept  quiet.  I  thought  if  he  was 
a  confederate  he  might  be  as  likely  to  cut  the  wrong  person  as  the  right  one. 
As  soon  as  we  got  out  into  the  hall,  where  was  a  bright  jet  of  gas  burning,  I 
recognized  the  person  who  had  just  come  up  as  Major  Seward.  I  spoke  then 
for  the  first  time,  and  said,  "  Major,  for  God's  sake  let  go  of  me,  and  take  the 
knife  out  of  his  hand,  and  cut  his  throat."  He  did  not  seem  to  understand  me, 
or  feel  disposed  to  do  it,  and  so  I  spoke  the  second  time  to  the  same  effect, 
making  the  additional  remark  that  I  had  his  right  arm,  and  he  could  not  hurt 
him.  Payne,  unclinching  his  hands  from  around  my  neck,  stntck  me  again, 
this  time  with  his  fist,  knocking  me  down,  and  then  broke  away  from  Major 
Seward,  and  ran  down  stairs.  Mr.  Seward  not  having  hold  of  him,  consequently 
did  not  detain  him.  On  his  way  down,  on  the  first  flight,  he  overtook  Mr. 
Hansell,  a  messenger  at  the  State  Department,  who  had  been  roused  by  the 
noise  that  had  been  made,  and  had  apparently  turned  to  go  down  stairs  for 
for  help.     He  came  within  reach  of  him  and  struck  him  in  the  back. 

Q.  What  did  Hansell  say  ? 

A.  He  started  to  say  "0!"  I  presume,  but  he  did  not  say  it  exactly.  He 
hallooed  out  pretty  loud.  He  did  not  utter  any  particular  Avord  that  I  heard.' 
Some  time  during  the  fuss  the  major  got  cut.  I  do  not  know  when  it  was  done ; 
certainly  not  after  I  got  hold  of  Payne,  because  he  had  no  way  to  do  it.  I  did 
not  see  him  after  he  got  down  stairs.  I  turned  back  after  I  saw  him  go  down, 
and  went  in  to  attend  to  the  Secretary,  who  I  found  had  rolled  off  the  bed  on 
to  the  floor. 

Q.  Will  you  state  how  many  blows  you  received  during  this  struggle  ] 

A.  Four. 

Q.  State  in  what  part  of  your  body. 

A.  One  on  my  forehead,  two  on  my  right  shoulder,  and  one  under  my  left 
shoulder  blade  ? 

Q.  Very  severe  wounds  ? 

A.  Two  of  them  were. 

Q.  Were  you  disabled  in  consequence  of  them;  and  if  so,  how  long? 

A.  I  was  confined  to  my  bed  for  three  weeks.  It  was  some  six  weeks  before 
they  were  healed. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  opportunity  to  see  how  this  man  was  armed  ? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  only  saw  that  he  had  a  knife  and  revolver,  which  he  dropped 
on  the  floor,  or  at  least  portions  of  it.     It  seemed  to  be  a  Whitney  naval  revolver. 

Q.  Did  you  have  an  opportunity  to  see  what  kind  of  a  knife  it  was  that  he 
used? 

A.  It  was  in  motion  when  I  saw  it,  and  so  I  could  not  tell  exactly  what  kind 
of  a  knife  it  was  ;  but  it  was  a  long,  heavy  one.  It  had  a  straight,  stiff  handle 
on  it,  with  a  cross-piece. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  dress  ?  * 

A.  He  was  dressed  in  a  light-colored,  not  exactly  a  drab  overcoat.  He  had 
dark  pants,  and  a  sort  of  a  slouch  hat. 

Q.  What  did  he  have  on  his  feet  that  attracted  your  attention  ? 


264  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  tliiiik  he  had  on  cavalry  boots.     They  were  very  heavy  ones,  but  I  did 
not  notice  them  particularly. 
.  Q.  Was  there  anything  on  the  boots  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  spurs  on  or  not. 

Q.  After  he  was  gone,  did  you  see  any  of  these  arms  that  you  have  described  ; 
and  if  so,  what  ? 

A.  I  found  portions  of  the  revolver — the  barrel  and  stock,  and  cylinder, 
detached.     The  spindle  was  out  of  it,  but  was  afterwards  found  in  the  room. 

Q.  Were  you  able  to  identify  these  things  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  1 
■  A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  You  would  be  able  to  identify  them  now,  if  they  were  shown  you  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  this  knife  afterwards? 

A.  I  have.     I  have  it  in  my  possession. 

Q.  Where  is  it  1 

A.  It  is  up  at  my  boarding  place. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  that  knife  1 

A.  It  was  presented  to  me  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  through  Judge  Holt. 

Q.  And  you  are  able  to  identify  it  as  the  knife  you  saw  on  that  occasion  ] 

A.  I  could  not,  positively.     It  resembles  it. 

Q.  Duriug  your  scuffle,  or  after  it,  was  your  attention  particularly  directed 
to  Mr.  Frederick  Seward,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  State 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  What  was  his  condition  ? 

A.  The  first  I  saw  of  him  was  in  the  room,  moving  round  like  one  in  a  sleep. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  the  Avounds  on  his  person  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  His  head  was  cut  in  various  places.  There  seemed  to  be  a  very 
severe  one,  I  think,  as  far  as  my  recollection  serves  me  now,  on  the  left  side 
of  the  head.  He  seemed  to  be  very  seriously  injured.  When  you  would  speak 
to  him,  he  would  look  at  you,  without  making  any  reply.  You  could  do  any- 
thing with  him  you  wanted  to  by  taking  hold  of  him.  He  seemed  to  have  no 
will  whatever  ^  his  own;  more  like  a  man  in  liis  sleep  than  anything  else. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Colonel  Seward  afterwards  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  marks  of  violence  did  you  observe  on  his  person  1 

A.  Various  cuts  on  his  head  and  forehead.  They  did  not  seem  to  be  so 
serious. 

Q.  Did  you  return  to  the  room  of  the  Secretary  of  State  ? 

A.  I  did.     I  found  him  lying  on  the  floor. 

Q.  After  you  had  gained  your  self-possesion,  state  what  you  did. 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  lost  that  at  all.  I  went  directly  to  his  assistance  and 
found  him  lying  on  the  floor  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  bed,  with  a  lot  of  bedding 
around  him.  1  undertook  immediately  to  discover  if  life  was  extinct.  Feeling 
his  wrist,  I  could  not  discover  any  pulsation  at  all.  Miss  Fannie  came  and 
wanted  to  know  if  her  father  was  dead.  I  replied  that  I  did  not  know,  but  was 
trying  to  find  out.  I  pulled  his  clothes  oS  and  felt  his  heart ;  I  found  that  it 
beat,  and  replied  that  he  was  not  dead.  The  Secretary  then  opened  his  eyes, 
looked  up  and  said,  "  I  am  not  dead  ;  send  for  a  surgeon,  send  for  the  police, 
close  the  house."  He  spoke  in  those  exact  words,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect. 
I  told  him  I  had  done  all  that,  and  requested  him  not  to  talk,  as  it  made  him 
bleed  worse.     I  found  where  the  wound  was,  and  lield  my  hand  over  it. 

Q.  Was  he  lying  on  the  floor] 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  was*bleeding  profusely.  As  soon  as  assistance  came  we  put 
him  in  bed. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURRATT.  265 

Q.  How  long  after  that  before  the  physician  came  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell ;  but  I  should  judge  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes. 

Q.  Who  was  the  physician  who  first  made  his  appearance  ? 

A  I  could  not  tell,  positively,  because  they  were  strangers  to  me.  I  should 
think,  however,  it  was  the  Surgeon  General.  I  could  not  tell,  however,  posi- 
tively.    There  were  three  or  four  in  attendance  in  a  very  short  time. 

Q.  Did  Payne  strike  at  the  Secretary  of  State  after  he  had  rolled  out  of  bed  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  He  did  not  roll  out  of  bed  until  1  pulled  Payne  away  from  him. 
Payne  had  his  hand  on  his  breast,  and  he  could  not,  if  he  had  desired  to. 

Q.  State  how  many  blows  you  saw  Payne  strike  at  the  Secretary  of  State. 

A.   I  should  think  as  many  as  four  or  five,  perhaps  six. 

Q.  Describe  the  character  of  the  blows  ;  whether  they  were  given  with  much 
force  or  not. 

A.  He  seemed  to  strike  with  all  the  energy  that  he  had.  The  first  two  or 
three  times  he  struck  at  him,  he  struck  beyond  him — the  first  time  in  particular. 
The  Secretary  at  the  time  was  lying  in  a  half-recumbent  position.  As  Payne 
appeared  and  struck  at  him  he  exclaimed,  "0  !"  and  then  seemed  to  gooff  into 
an  insensible  condition.     He  did  not  say  anything  more  at  any  rate. 

Q.   How  many  blows  did  he  actually  strike  him  ? 

A.  I  think  he  only  cut  him  with  two  blows — one  on  each  side  of  his  face. 

Q.  Were  you  present  at  the  time  the  doctor  examined  the  wounds  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  appear  to  be  severe  wounds  ? 

A.  They  did.  1  think  his  right  cheek  was  cut  clear  through,  so  that  you 
could  see  into  his  mouth  ;  I  am  not  positive  about  it,  however,  for  it  bled  so 
bard  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  Did  he  seem  to  suffer  much  pain  ? 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  insensible  most  of  the  time  I  was  there. 

Q.  Did  his  cheek  lie  down  on  his  neck  ? 

A.  Kind  of  slid  down — hung  only  on  the  back  part. 

Q.  You  continued  to  act  as  his  nurse  from  that  time  until  the  time  of  his 
recovery  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  went  away  the  next  morning. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  the  Secretary  afterwards? 

A.  1  think  the  Wednesday  or  Thursday,  three  weeks  from  that  time. 

Q.  You  had  hold  of  this  man  Payne,  and  therefore  had  an  opportunity  to 
form  some  estimate  of  his  strength.     Was  he  a  very  stout  man  ? 

A.  He  was  a  very  large  man. 

Q.  Was  he  a  strong,  muscular  man  ? 

A,  I  hadn't  a  fair  opportunity  to  judge  of  that.  I  was  under  some  excite- 
ment at  the  time. 

John  V.  Piles — residence,  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland — sworn  and 
examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 
A.  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  there? 
A.  Nearly  forty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  exercise  any  office  there,  or  did  you  in  1S65  ? 
A,  I  was  a  justice  of  the  peace  about  ten  years — until  within  two  yea.s  past. 
I  am  at  present  a  commissioner  of  tax  for  the  county. 
Q.  You  were  justice  of  the  peace  in  1865  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  in  1864-65. 
Q.  Do  you  know  John  H.  Surratt  ? 
18 


266  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  did  know  him.     I  knew  him  years  ago. 

Q.  Do  yon  know  him  now] 

(Tlie  prisoner  was  here  requested  to  stand  up.) 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  know  him  well  enough. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ] 

A.  1  have  known  him  ever  since  he  was  a  boy.  His  residence  is  not  more 
than  two  or  three  miles  from  mine. 

Q.  State  whether  you  had  an  interview  with  him  in  the  early  part  of  1865, 
and  whether  or  not  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  in  regard  to  his  leaving 
the  coxmtry  and  going  to  Canada. 

A.  In  1864  or  1865—1  don't  know  which. 

Q.  State  bow  long  prior  to  April,  1865. 

A  I  did  not  commit  that  to  memory.  I  think  about  three  months,  as  near 
as  I  can  recollect,  before  the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  About  that  time  I 
had  left  home  ;  I  was  working  at  my  father's,  or  lower  place,  some  mile  or  so 
frcm  there.  Mr.  Surratt  came  down  there  for  the  purpose  of  getting  me  to  sign 
some  papers.  I  really  cannot  tell  anything  regarding  the  import  of  those 
papers. 

Q.  To  get  you  to  sign  some  papers? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  as  a  justice  of  the  peace,  in  order  to  make  them  legal. 

Q.  State  what  he  said  to  you  in  regard  to  the  object  of  his  visit. 

A.  Well,  he  seemed  to  be  urgent  to  have  me  sign  the  papers,  and  having  no 
pen.  ink,  or  anything  of  the  kind  at  the  place,  we  proposed  to  go  over  to  my 
brother's,  about  a  quarter  or  a  half  mile  off",  and  get  pen  and  ink  there.  We 
started,  and  going  along  I  asked  him  about  his  business  and  so  on.  The  draft  was 
on  hand  at  that  time,  and  I  asked  him  about  it.  He  said  either  that  he  wanted  to 
get  some  money,  or  fix  some  papers  to  leave  for  his  mother,  or  something  of 
that  kind.  He  told  me  he  wanted  to  go  away.  I  asked  him  where,  or  some- 
thing of  that  sort,  for  I  did  not  want  him  to  go  away,  he  had  been  in  the  neigh- 
borhood so  long ;  and  he  said  he  wanted  to  go  away  to  avoid  the  draft. 

Q.  Where  did  he  say  he  was  going? 

A.  I  think  he  told  me  that  he  intended  to  go  to  Canada.  It  was  rumored  at 
that  time  that  there  were  a  great  many  going  there  in  order  to  avoid  the  draft. 

Q.  State  what  he  said  in  regard  to  the  object  of  the  cmiveyance  to  his  mother  ; 
what  he  wanted  to  have  done  in  case  he  did  not  return. 

A.  He  said  something  about  wanting  to  make  his  mother  safe,  or  leaving  her 
some  money.  It  was  something  like  that — what,  <'xactly,  I  cannot  now  tell. 
It  was  probably  a  mortgage  or  deed  to  get  money  on  to  pay  the  expenses  of  his 
voyage — something  like  that.     It  was  something  about  getting  money. 

Q.  State  what  he  said,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  in  regard  to  making  his  mother 
safe  in  case  he  did  not  return. 

A.  I  think  I  have  told  you  about  all  that  he  said.  I  won't  be  positive  as  lo 
whether  he  said  to  make  his  mother  safe.    It  was  something  in  that  way. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  about  coming  back  ] 

A.  I  think  he  said,  if  he  did  not  return  he  wanted  to  make  his  mother  safe, 
or  something  like  that.  I  am  disposed  to  think  that  he  was  going  to  make  some 
arrangement  to  get  money,  and,  perhaps,  she  was  going  to  be  responsible,  or 
something  like  that.  I  do  not  remember  exactly.  1  have  never  seen  him  since 
till  now  that  I  know  of 

No  cross-examination. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

Mr.  Bradley  asked  that  John  X.ee — being  present  in  court — be  recalled  for 
further  cross-examination. 


TEIAL    OF    JOHN    II     SURRATT.  267 

Mr.  Pierropoiit  objected.  The  same  question  had.  been  rai.sed  and  decided 
but  the  court  iu  relation  to  other  witnesses. 

Mr.  Bradh^y  did  not  understand  that  the  question  had  been  definitely  decided. 
They  desired  now  to  present  it  agnin,  and  to  produce  authorities  to  show  why 
it  would  be  the  exercise  of  a  proper  discretion  of  the  court  to  direct  the  recall 
of  these  witnesses  for  cross-examination. 

After  discussion  upon  the  point  presented,  the  court  reserved  his  decision 
until  Monday,  and  thereupon  the  court  took  a  recess  until  Monday  next,  at  10 
o'clocl\  a.  m. 

The  Court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Mo\DAY,  June  24,  1867. 

As  soon  as  the  court  had  been  called  to  order  Judge  Fisher  read  the  follow- 
ing opinion  upon  the  motion  submitted  on  Saturday  by  the  defence,  asking  the 
recall  of  witnesses  for  the  purpose  of  further  cross-examination  : 

I  have  been  called  upon  again  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  to 
order  the  recall  of  witnesses  summoned  by  the  prosecution  after  the  cross-ex- 
amination has  been  ended  and  the  witnesses  dismissed,  in  order  that  the  pris- 
oner may  recross-cxamine,  with  the  view  of  inquiring  of  the  witness  so  to  be 
recalled  as  to  whether  some  moral  stigma  is  not  resting  upon  his  character,  or 
whether  he  has  not  made  statements  out  of  doors,  prior  to  the  trial  or  since,  in 
conflict  with  the  testimony  delivered  at  the  bar,  and  thus  to  lay  the  foundation 
to  impeach  his  credit.     It  is  claimed  as  the  prisoner's  right. 

I  have  heretofore  refused  to  order  witnesses  to  be  recalled,  and  yet  the  coun- 
sel for  the  defence  have  again  presented  the  question  for  a  rehearing,  and  wirh 
so  much  apparent  confidence  of  the  rightfulness  of  the  demand  that,  in  a  spirit 
of  accommodation,  I  ventured  to  listen  to  their  appeal,  with  the  sincere  desire 
to  correct  any  error  which  I  may  have  committed,  if  satisfied  of  its  commission. 

It  could  afford  me  no  gratification.  Heaven  knows,  to  contribute  by  any  error* 
of  my  judgment  to  the  rendition  of  a   verdict  of  conviction  in  any  case  where 
the  life  of  a  fellow-being  is  involved,  which  but  for  such'  error  might  hav-e  been 
a  verdict  of  acquittal.     Such  a  reflection  would  be  a  lasting  canker  in  my  con- 
science, even  in  a  case  where  I  knew  the  conviction  fell  upon  the  guilty  felon. 

In  such  a  spirit  I  have  heard  the  counsel  for  the  defence  in  this  case  through 
arguments  which  it  seemed  to  me  Avould  have  been  better  addressed  to  the  jury 
than  to  the  court,  and  have  endeavored  to  discover  whether  I  liad  not  possibly 
erred.  So  far  from  being  convinced  that  I  was  wrong  in  my  decision,  the  more 
I  have  reflected  upon  the  ruling  I  have  made  in  the  matter  the  more  I  am  con- 
vinced that  I  was  in  the  right. 

In  this  case  tlicre  have  thus  far  been  examined  witnesses  brought  here  from 
Canada,  from  Maine,  from  Vermont,  from  New  York,  from  Virginia,  and  from 
Mississippi.  The  trial,  it  is  conceded,  will  not  close  with  the  present  month. 
The  witnesses  are  engaged  in  the  various  pursuits  of  lif -.  Sout!  ai'o  farmers, 
some  merchants,  some  lawyers,  bank  ofiicers,  railroad  conductors,  and  others, 
all  of  whom,  or  most  of  whom,  have  necessarily  to  be  away  from  their  homes 
and  business  to  attend  this  trial.  They  are,  of  course,  subject  to  some,  and  most 
of  them,  to  great  inconvenience,  not  to  say  sacrifice,  in  attending  Cinirtat  all. 

It  is  now  demanded  by  the  proposition  of  the  counsel  for  the  prisoner  that 
each  of  these  witnesses  shall,  after  going  through  the  examination  and  cross- 
examination,  be  either  ordered  by  the  court  to  rem  lin  till  tht;  trial  shall  be 
ended  or  the  case  argued  to  the  jury,  or  else  shall  be  comptdled  to  return  here 
after  having  gone  home,  to  place  himself  in  a  position  to  have  his  character  for 
veracity  attacked  by  other  witnesses,  to  be  procured  fir  that  pm-pose  by  tlio 
defence,  or  to  tell  the  pul)lic  him-elf  that  he  is  a  criminal  without  character  and 
not  worthy  of  belief.  This  is  simply  what  the  proposition  of  the  counsel  in 
substance  amounts  to ;  and  a  new  statement  of  it  in  its  simple  nakedness  is 
sufficient  to  show  the  impropi-iety  of  granting  it.  L't  us  take  the  case  of  the 
witness  from  Maine,  examined  on  Saturday,  for  the  purpose  of  illustration. 


268  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

We  will  suppose  that  he  has  now  gone  home,  and  the  prisoner's  friends  have 
telegraphed  to  his  neighborhood  and  have  been  informed  by  somebody  there  that 
lie  has  said  something  to  somebody,  no  matter  to  whom  or  how  carelessly,  which 
they  suppose  may  in  some  degree  conflict  with  what  he  testified  to  when  before 
the  court.  The  counsel  for  the  defence  present  their  request  to  have  him  re- 
called from  a  distance  of  some  700  or  800  or  1,000  miles.  He  is  sent  for  and 
asked  whether  he  has  not  said  thus  and  so  to  John  Jones  or  John  Smith  or 
John  Brown.  He  denies  it  Jones,  Brown,  and  Smith  are  immediately  sub- 
poenaed, and  come  on  from  Maine,  and  when  here  they  all  swear  that  the  wit- 
ness for  the  prosecution  did  say  something  which  was  inconsistent  with  the 
testimony  he  gave.  These  three  persons  return  to  their  homes,  and  afterwards 
the  counsel  for  the  prosecution  discover  that  they  have  said,  after  going  home, 
that  they  all  had  falsified  in  their  testimony.  They  must  all  then  be  recalled 
to  be  questioned  on  the  subject  before  they  can  be  thus  discredited,  and  they 
are  brought  back  to  be  recross-examined  by  the  prosecution,  and  with  them  the 
prosecution  summon  at  least  two  more  witnesses  to  discredit  each  one  of  them; 
and  so  the  matter  should  go,  each  recall  necessarily  involving  a  multiplication 
of  witnesses,  going  forward  in  geometrical  progression.  Can  any  human  being 
tell  when  the  case  would  end  1  The  only  solution  of  the  question — the  only 
termination  of  the  case — would  be  the  death  of  the  pi'isoncr  or  the  jurors  trying 
him.  But  for  the  intervention  of  death,  it  would  be  difficult  to  say  which  of 
two  events  would  first  happen,  the  end  of  this  trial  or  the  return  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham  to  the  holy  city — their  ancient  Jerusalem. 

It  is  just  because  all  trials  must  have  an  end  in  some  reasonable  time,  and  be- 
cause witnesses  must  have  some  protection  from  unending  annoyance  and  inconve- 
nience and  sacrifice,  and  because  jurors' and  judges  are  not  expected  to  spend 
a  generation  in  tr}  ing  any  cause,  no  matter  how  important ;  and  because  facilities 
*e  not  to  be  aff<)rded  to  have  witnesses  hunted  down  and  wrongfully  robbed  of 
their  fair  standing  in  the  community — their  reputations  attacked  without  a  chance 
for  defending  them — that  the  rule  of  law,  as  I  have  heretofore  ruled  it,  was 
established  in  England  many  genei-ations  since,  and  accepted  as  the  law  every- 
where in  this  country  where  the  law  is  rightly  understood. 

Lord  Cranworlh,  (then  Baron  Rolfe,)  in  the  case  of  the  Attorney  General  ?'*. 
Hitchcock,  1  Ex.,  99,  very  properly  remarked  in  reference  to  the  law  of  evi- 
dence on  this  subject,  that  it  "  must  be  considered  as  founded  on  a  sort  of  com- 
parative consideration  of  the  time  to  be  occupied  in  examinations  of  this  nature, 
and  the  time  which  it  is  practicable  to  bestow  upon  them.  If  we  lived  for  a 
thousand  years  instead  of  about  sixty  or  seventy,  and  every  case  were  of  suffi- 
cient importance,  it  might  be  desirable  to  throw  a  light  on  matters  in  which 
every  possible  question  might  be  suggested,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  by  such 
means  whether  the  whole  was  unfounded  or  what  portion  of  it  was  not,  and  to 
raise  every  possible  inquiry  as  to  the  truth  of  the  statements  made.  But  I  do 
not  see  how  that  could  be ;  in  fact,  mankind  find  it  impossible.''  I  am,  how- 
ever, very  doubtful  if  his  lordship's  limitation  of  a  thousand  years  as  a  human 
lifetime  would  be  a  sufiicient  period  in  which  to  conclude  a  case  of  great  magni- 
tude and  extensive  ramifications,  if  we  once  throw  aside  the  rules  of  evidence 
and  embark  on  a  wild  ocean  of  inquiry,  and  raise  every  possible  question  as  to 
the  truth  of  statements  made  by  witnesses. 

The  rule  for  conducting  the  examination  of  witnesses  is  as  I  have  before 
stated  it  to  be.  1.  The  party  desiring  the  testimony  of  the  witness  calls  him, 
and,  after  he  is  sworn,  examines  him  in  chief,  putting  no  leading  questions  to 
him  except  it  shall  be  manifest  to  the  court  that  he  is  an  unwilling  witness,  or 
unless  it  be  apparent  that  the  memory  of  the  witness  is  at  fault  and  may  be  set 
right  by  a  suggestive  question ;  or  when  the  mind  of  the  witness  cannot  be 
directed  to  the  subject-matter  of  inquiry  without  having  it  particularly  pointed 
out  to  him. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  269 

2.  After  the  direct  examination  is  concluded,  the  witness  is  handed  over  for 
cross-examination,  during  which  he  may  be  asked  whether  he  has  not  made  a 
statement  contradictory  of  something — anything — said  by  him  in  the  direct  ex- 
amination. But  such  questions  must  be  put  during  the  cross-examination,  or  at 
all  events  before  the  party  producing  the  witness  has  dismissed  him  and  he  has 
gone  away. 

3.  If  a  witness  for  one  party  be  thus  once  examined  and  cross-examined  and 
discharged,  the  party  who  calls  him  a  second  time  makes  him  his  own  witness  ; 
just  as  he  makes  him  his  own  witness  whenever  he  proceeds  to  cross-examine 
him  in  relation  to  facts  or  circumstances  not  detailed  in  the  direct  examination. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  rule  is  laid  down  differently  by  the  judges  of  England 
in  the  case  of  Queen  Caroline,  in  1820,  in  resolving  the  following  questions  pro- 
pounded to  the  learned  judges  by  the  House  of  Lords  : 

1.  Whether,  when  a  witness  in  support  of  a  prosecution  has  been  examined 
in  chief,  and  has  not  been  asked  in  cross-examination  as  to  any  declarations 
made  by  him,  or  acts  done  by  him,  to  procure  persons  corruptly  to  give  evi- 
dence in  support  of  the  prosecution,  it  would  be  competent  for  the  accused  to 
examine  witnesses  to  prove  such  declarations  or  acts,  without  first  calling  back 
such  witness  examined  in  chief,  to  be  examined  or  cross-examined  as  to  the  fact 
whether  he  ever  made  such  declarations  or  did  such  acts  ?     And, 

2.  Whether,  if  a  witness  is  called  on  the  part  of  the  prosecutor,  and  gives 
evidence  against  the  defendant,  and  if  after  the  cross-examination  it  is  discov- 
ered that  the  witness  so  examined  has  corrupted  or  endeavored  to  corrupt  an- 
other person  to  give  false  testimony  in  the  cause,  the  counsel  for  the  defendant 
may  not  be  permitted  to  give  evidence  of  such  corrupt  act  without  calling  back 
such  witness  ? 

Both  these  questions  were  answered  in  the  negative  unanimously,  so  that 
the  decision  was  that  even  when  it  should  be  discovered,  after  his  cross-exam- 
ination, that  a  witness  for  the  prosecution  had  been  guilty  of  supposed  declara- 
tions or  acts  in  endeavoring  to  suborn  other  witnesses,  his  conduct  in  that 
respect  could  not  be  inquired  into  from  other  witnesses  until  he  had  first 
been  allowed  the  opportunity  of  explaining  such  supposed  acts  or  declarations ; 
and  the  reason  given  was,  if  such  a  coursH  could  be  pursued  without  previous 
intimation  to  the  witness,  great  injustice  might  be  done  both  to  the  witness  and 
the  party  calling  him.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  question  only  had  reference 
to  declarations  or  acts  made  or  done  to  corrupt  the  fountains  of  justice — to  pro- 
cure persons  to  commit  perjury.  This  was  all  that  was  decided,  and  nothing 
more.  It  is  true  that,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  learned  judges,  Chief 
Justice  Abbott  said,  "We  think  the  only  effect  of  a  subsequent  discovery  "  (of 
the  effort  at  subornation  of  perjury)  "would  be  to  allow  the  witness  to  be 
called  back  for  further  cross-examination,  if  still  within  reach."  But  this  was 
not  even  a  decision  of  the  question  as  to  whether  in  such  case  the  witness  could 
be  of  right  called  back  for  the  purpose  of  further  cross-examinaMon.  The 
question  as  to  the  existence  of  such  right  of  recall  and  further  cross-examina- 
tion was  not  one  of  the  questions  propounded  to  the  judges,  and  of  course  was 
not  a  matter  decided  by  them.  But  even  supposing  their  decision  went  to  that 
length,  still  that  is  not  this  case.  It  might  very  well  be  that  if  the  judge  try- 
ing a  cause  should  be  satisfied  by  affidavits  or  otherwise  that  there  was  proba- 
ble cause  to  believe  that  a  witness  who  had  been  examined  and  cross-examined 
had  been  guilty  of  attempts  at  subornation,  poisoning  the  very  fouu'ains  of 
justice,  he  should  order  the  recall  of  such  witness  for  the  purposes  of  giving 
him  the  opportunity  to  explain  or  to  deny,  and  then  in  case  of  denial  to  allow 
his  denial  to  be  attacked.  But  tiiat  would  be  a  very  different  thing  from  ordi- 
nary witnesses  to  remain  for  weeks,  or  it  may  be  for  mouths,  hundreds  of  miles 
away  from  home,  or  to  order  them  back  after  their  return  home,  that  they  may 
be  recalled  for  the  mere  purpose  of  laying  the  groundwork  of  their  coutradic- 
tion  by  other  witnesses  who  might  be  hunted  up. 


270  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.' 

We  tliiiik  the  case  of  Queen  Caroline  is  good  law,  so  far  as  it  decided  the 
questions  )»rop')unded  by  the  House  of  Lords,  and  no  further.  It  is  not  decisive 
of  this  j)resent  application.  No  person  can  read  the  opinion  delivered  by  Ohief 
Justice  Abbott  without  discovering  that  it  is  very  wide  of  the  present  case. 

If  the  law  were  so  well  settled  as  the  counsel  for  defendant  in  this  case  claim 
it  to  be,  it  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  the  text-books  are  altogether  silent  on 
the  subject,  and  that  no  adjudicated  case  has  been  produced  in  support  of  the 
proposition. 

The  rules  upon  this  subject  to  which  I  have  alluded,  and  such  as  I  have 
always  seen  observed  in  any  practice  with  which  I  am  familiar,  and  in  tlie  ab- 
sence of  controlling  authority  or  reason  requiring  they  should  be  set  aside,  I 
prefer  to  adhere  to  them  in  this  case,  as  I  have  iu  all  other  cases  which  have 
preceded  it. 

If  counsel  for  the  defence  still  believe  they  are  right  in  the  views  which  they 
have  presented  they  are  entitled  to  note  an  exception. 

The  defence  noted  an  exception,  and  Mr.  Merrick  desired  to  file  an  affidavit 
bearing  upon  the  same  matter,  but  counsel  for  the  prosecution  objected,  and  the 
court  said  the  affidavit  should  have  been  filed  before  the  opinion  was  delivered. 

J.  T.  May,  physician — residence,  Washington — sworn  and  examined. 
By  Assistant  District  Attorney  Wilson  : 

Q.  You  are  a  practising  physician  and  surgeon  in  Washington,  and  have  been 
for  many  years  past  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  for  over  thirty  yeai's. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  John  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  his  jjliysician  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  was  his  physician.  I  was  acquainted  with  him  pro- 
fessionally, in  this  way  :  he  came  to  my  office,  and  desired  to  have  an  opinion 
about  a  tumor  on  his  neck,  which  I  advised  him  to  have  removed. 

Q.  State  whether  it  was  done. 

A.  1  did  remove  it  from  his  neck  while  he  was  filling  an  engagement  here  at 
one  of  the  theatres. 

Q.  How  was  it  done  ? 

A.  With  a  knife.     I  took  it  out. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  wound  it  left,  and  the  appearance  of  the  wound 
aftt  r  it  healed  1 

A.  The  tumor  Avas  on  the  back  of  his  neck,  a  little  to  one  side.  I  do  not 
recollect  whether  if,  was  on  his  right  or  his  left  side. 

j\Ir.  Bkadlev.  I  presume,  your  honor,  it  is  understood  that  we  except  to  the 
adii  ission  of  any  of  this  proof. 

JNlr.  Wilson.  We  are  examining  Dr.  May  out  of  the  regular  order,  simply  as 
a  matter  of  convenience. 

Mr.  Braulkv.  The  question  we  raise  is  as  to  the  admissibility  of  the  evi- 
dence, not  to  the  order  in  which  it  is  given. 

i\lr.  Wilson.  Of  course,  it  does  not  appear  relevant  now,  but  we  will  make  it 
a])pear  so  before  we  close  the  case. 

Q.  Describe  the  ajtpearance  of  the  wound. 

A.  1  was  a  little  i-cluctant  about  removing  this  tumor,  because  he  was  play- 
ing an  engagement  here  in  the  city,  and  I  told  him  so  ;  I  told  him  that  he  was 
liable  to  have  the  wound  torn  open.  He  was  very  urgent  to  have  it  taken  out, 
and  promised  to  moderate  himself  in  his  playing  if  I  would  remove  it.  Finally 
I  consented  to  take  it  out,  on  condition  tliat  he  would  be  careful.  The  wound 
united  very  closely  by  what  we  called  adhesion,  or  union  by  the  first  intention. 
He  came  to  my  office  every  day  to  have  it  dressed.  Some  days  after  the  wound 
had  united — perhaps  four  or  five  days — he  called  with  the  wound  torn  widely 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURKATT.  271 

open.  He  stated  that  in  some  part  of  the  phiy  of  the  evening;  before,  ^liss  Cn~h- 
nian  had  struck  him  on  the  neck,  and  liad  torn  the  wound  open.  I  will  state 
that  when  a  wound  of  that  kind  is  once  torn  open,  it  lias  to  unite  by  a  ditierent 
process  than  adhesion.  It  has  to  unite  by  a  scranulatinp;  process,  which  gen- 
erally leaves  considerable  of  a  scar.  It  had  left  in  hi^  case  a  scar,  such  as  I 
would  have  expected  from  a  gap  that  had  been  made  to  fill  up  by  granulation ; 
•whereas,  if  it  had  united  by  first  intention,  it  would  have  left  only  a  slight  seam. 

Q.  Describe  the  appearance  of  the  scar. 

A.  It  was  a  scar  of  some  width — such  a  scar  as  would  not  have  been  mado 
by  a  surgical  operation  if  the  wound  had  united  by  adhesion,  -but  it  had  beea 
torn  open  by  this  blow.  After  being  torn  a])art  it  left,  when  healed,  a  broad, 
ugly-luokiug  scar,  produced  by  the  granulating  process  of  which  I  have  spoken, 
which  is  usually  the  case  with  wounds  which  unite  the  second  time  after  being 
torn  open. 

Q.  Was  there  any  discoloration  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  At  first  it  is  of  a  red  color,  but  in  ourse  of  time  the  cicatrix 
becomes  rather  whiter  and  more  dense. 

Q.  When  was  it,  doctor,  that  yon  performed  this  operation  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  exactly.  It  was  some  timebefoie  Mr.  Lincoln  was  killed  ; 
I  should  say  at  least  a  year ;  perhaps  longer  than  that.  I  cannot  tell  exactly, 
as  I  make  no  reference  to  it  on  my  books. 

Q.  State  when  and  where  you  last  saw  the  body  of  Booth. 

A.  The  last  time  I  saw  the  body  was  on  board  the  monitor,  at  the  navy 
yard.  I  cannot  specify  the  day.  It  was  some  days  after  he  was  reported  to 
have  been  killed  ;  a  day  or  two,  perhaps,  after  that. 

Q.  Yon  identified  the  body  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  this  scar  ? 

A.  I  observed  a  scar  on  the  neck.  In  fact,  I  told  the  Surgeon  General  where 
the  scar  was.  and  what  its  appearance  was,  before  I  examined  it. 

Q.  State  how  long  before  the  assassination  it  was  that  you  performed  this 
operation. 

A.  I  cannot.  It  was  certainly  a  year  ;  it  may  have  been  a  year  and  a  half. 
I  cannot  give  the  precise  time,  because  I  made  no  entry.  He  was  playing  an 
engagement  with  Charlotte  (Jushman  at  the  time.  She  was  a  strong,  powerful 
woman,  and  either  in  embracing  him,  in  some  part  of  the  play,  or  in  repulsing 
him,  I  do  not  knovv  which,  she  tore  this  wound  open,  which  caused  this  bad- 
hjoking  scar  to  be  left. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  which  side  of  the  neck  it  was  1 

A.  1  do  not.     I  never  made  any  note  of  it. 

JoH\  Greknawalt — residence,  Philadelphia,  Pa. — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo.\t  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  now  live  1 

A.  In  Philadelphia,  200  Church  street. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  1 

A.  I  am  in  the  hotel  business. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  hotel  in  the  city  of  Washington  at  any  time  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Please  state  from  what  time  to  what  time. 

A.  It  was  from  '61  to  '66. 

Q.  What  was  th(^  name  of  the  house  ? 

A.  Tlie  Pennsylvania  House. 

Q.  Where  was  it  situated  1 

A.  On  C  street,  between  Four-and-a-half  and  Sixth. 

(^.  Did  you  see  during  that  time  John  Wilkes  Booth  at  your  house  ? 


272  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SUKRATT. 

A.  I  did. 
Q.  How  often  1 

A.  I  could  not  state  the  number  of  times,  but  it  was  frequently. 
Q    Did  you  see  any  other  person  there  that  he  came  to  see?  and  if  so,  state 
who  he  was. 

A.  He  came  to  see  Atzerodt. 
Q.  Did  he  live  there  ? 
A.  He  stopped  with  me  during  that  time. 
Q.  Boarded  with  you  1 
A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  number  of  the  room  he  occupied  1 
A.  Number  51. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Who  occupied  that  roomi 
Witness.  Atzerodt. 
Q.  Did  you  see  Herold  there  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  state  who  was  your  clerk,  or  bookkeeper,  at  that  time  ? 
A.  Samuel  McAllister. 

(The  prisoner  was  here  directed  to  stand  up,  in  order  that  he  might  be  seen 
by  the  witness.     He  did  so.) 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  prisoner  before  1 
A.  I  have. 
Q.  Where? 

A.  In  my  house,  the  Pennsylvania  House. 
Q.  Ijtate  who  was  boarding  with  you  then. 
A  I  could  not  state  the  time  that  I  saw  him  there. 
Q.  Who  did  you  see  him  there  with? 
A.  I  could  not  say  that. 

Q.  Can  you  state  about  when  you  saw  him  there? 
A.  I  remember  his  face,  and  that  is  all. 
Q.  What  did  Booth  do  there  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object  to  any  further  examination  on  that  branch.  I  sup- 
pose it  comes  within  the  ruling  of  your  honor,  but  I  desire  to  have  an  exception 
noted.  I  submit  that  the  witness,  having  stated  he  had  seen  Surratt,  but  is 
unable  to  state  when,  with  whom,  or  how,  any  further  examination  as  to  the 
parties  at  that  time  is  not  proper. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.NT.  It  will  be  when  we  get  McAllister  here. 
Mr.  Bradley.  That  may  be;  but  he   is  not  upon  the  stand  at  present.     I 
do  not  want  this  testimony  to  go  in  subsUetUio,  under  the  impression  that  it  may 
be  made  evidence  hereafter. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  occurred  at  your  house  ?  I  mean  between  these 
parties. 

A.  AVell.  Booth  called  frrquently  on  Atzerodt,  and  always  held  his  conversa- 
tions with  him  privately.  He  generally  called  him  out  of  the  house  or  into  the 
hall.  Atzerodt  generally  followed  him  out.  They  sometimes  held  conversation 
in  front  of  my  house  On  several  occasions  on  which  I  have  walked  to  the 
door  with  them,  they  have  left  the  front  of  my  house  and  walked  down  towards 
the  National  Hotel,  and  stood  there. 
Q.  As  you  walked  to  the  door  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  one  particular  occasion  of  a  meeting  there  ? 
Mr.  Bradley.  AVhat  sort  of  a  meeting? 
Mr.  Pierrepont.  A  meeting  of  persons  from  any  place. 
Witness.  I  remember  of  a  number  of  gentlemen  meeting  Atzerodt  in  the 
house. 

Q.  Where  from  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JHON    11.    SURRATT.  273 

A.  I  could  not  state  where  they  were  from.  They  were  strangers  to  me. 
They  were  drinking  frequently  there,  and  asked  me  to  take  a  drink. 

Q.  Who  asked  you  to  take  a  drink  1 

A.  Atzerodt. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  1 

A.  After  we  had  taken  a  drink  he  said  he  hadn't  much  money ,'hut  he  always 
had  friends  enough  to  give  him  as  much  as  would  see  him  through.  He  ex- 
pected to  leave  some  of  these  days,  remain  away  some  time,  and  then  return  with 
as  much  gold  as  would  keep  him  all  his  life.    • 

Q.  About  what  time  was  that  said  ? 

A.  That  must  have  been  about  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  assassination. 
I  could  not  state  the  date. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  know  when  the  assassination  was,  and  you  say  it  was 
about  two  or  three  weeks  before  that. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  occurrence  on  the  18th  of  March,  at  your  house, 
prior  to  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  think  he  came  to  my  house  about  that  time. 

Q.   State  whether  his  stoppings  there  were  long  or  short. 

A.  He  then  stopped  until  about  the  first  of  April,  I  think. 

Q.  On  the  Wednesday  prior  to  the  assassination,  what  occurred,  if  anything  ] 

A.  He  left  my  house  on  Wednesday  morning.  He  said  to  me  :  "  Mr.  Greena- 
walt,  I  am  going  away  to  stay  a  few  days.  I  owe  you  a  small  bill.  Does  it 
make  any  difference  whether  I  pay  you  now,  or  when  I  return  ?"  I  told  him  it 
did  not  make  any  difference. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  a  one-eyed  horse  of  his  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Slate  about  it. 

A.  1  bought  a  horse  of  him,  and  came  very  near  buying  that  one.  It  was  a 
one-eyed  horse. 

Q.  Did  you  see  this  one-eyed  horse  of  Atzerodt's  after  the  murder  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  ? 

A.  It  was  on  the  morning  of  the  15th. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  the  horse  ? 

A.  At  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  office  on  Fourteenth  street. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  murder,  did  you  see  Atzerodt  ] 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  about  that. 

A.  I  saw  him  about  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  past  two  o'clock  on  the  15th. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  Uth  and  morning  of  the  15th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  hour  ? 

A.  About  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  past  two  o'clock. 

Q    Tell  where  you  saw  him,  and  what  occurred. 

A.  I  had  just  returned  to  my  house  and  gone  to  my  room  wlien  the  servant 
man  came  up  and  stated  that  Atzerodt  and  some  gentleman  had  comi;  in,  and 
that  the  stranger  wished  lodgings  and  wished  to  pay  for  it.  He  thereupon 
handed  me  a  So  bill  to  take  pay  for  the  lodgings  out  of  I  had  not  retired,  and 
so  I  went  down  to  the  ofiice  myself.  The  stranger  was  standing  at  the  register, 
and  Atzerodt  was  lying  on  the  settee,  in  the  front  room.  I  asked  the  gentleman 
what  he  wished.  He  said  he  wished  lodgings,  so  I  gave  him  the  change,  and 
had  him  shown  to  his  room.  He  gave  his  name  as  Samuel  Thomas.  Atzerolt 
then  asked  for  his  old  room.  I  told  him  it  was  occupied  ;  that  he  would  have 
to  go  in  the  room  with  this  stranger.  It  was  a  large  room,  with  six  beds  in  it. 
There  were  other  parties  in  it  before  these  parties  went  there.  He  then  followed 
to  go  to  the  room.     I  said  to  him  :  {•  You  have  not  registered."     He  said  :  "No; 


274  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H     SURRATT. 

do  you  wish  me  to  ?"  I  said :  "  Certainly."  He  turned  round,  hesitated  some, 
but  finally  walked  forward  and  registered,  and  then  walked  to  his  room.  That 
is  the  last  I  saw  of  him. 

Q.  Describe  the  man  who  was  with  him. 

A.  He  was  a  man  of  from  five  feet  six  to  six  and  one  half  inches  in  height, 
and  weighed  from  140  to  150  pounds. 

Q.  Describe  his  face,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  and  his  dress  and  beard. 

A.  His  face  was  rather  slender.  He  had  dark  hair,  and  a  dark  beard.  He 
had  on  a  broadcloth  suit.  The  back  portion  of  his  pants  were  all  worn  through, 
I  discovered  that  as  he  passed  the  door. 

Q.  After  Atzerodt  went  to  the  room  that  night,  did  you  ever  see  him  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  saw  him  at  his  trial. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  anybody  left  your  house  that  morning  for  the  train  1 
and  if  so,  what  train  ? 

A.  There  was  a  lady  who  wished  to  leave  in  the  six  o'clock  train,  and  I  gave 
orders  to  have  a  carriage  there  to  take  her  away.  A  servant  had  gone  and  got 
it,  and  met  Atzerodt  on  his  return  ;  that  was  five  o'clock,  or  a  little  before.  He 
was  walking  towards  Sixth  street,  on  C. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  condition  of  the  night  was  at  five  o'clock,  as  to 
whether  it  was  dark  or  not  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  this  lady  return  to  your  house  after  she  went  to  this  train,  at  this 
hour  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  Atzerodt  any  baggage  there  ? 

A.  He  had  not. 

Q.  Did  the  other  man  bring  any  baggage  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  pay  his  bill  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Has  he  ever  paid  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  show  you  any  arms  at  any  time  1  and  if  so,  what,  and  when  ? 

A.  He  had  left  a  revolver  in  the  office  in  charge  of  the  clerk. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  it  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  was  it  ? 

A.  He  had  shown  it  to  me  and  told  me  he  had  just  bought  it.  I  then  asked 
him  what  he  paid  for  it?  I  told  him  that  1  did  not  know  he  wanted  one  ;  and 
Avished  I  had,  as  I  had  one  that  I  had  no  use  foi". 

Q.  Was  this  a  new  one  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  peculiar  money,  if  any,  Atzerodt  brought  you. 

A.  Not  any  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  I  do  not  mean  peculiar  always,  but  at  that  time.     Did  he  bring  you  gold  ? 

A..  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  0,  yes,  I  remember ;  it  was  another  man  who  brought  you 
gold. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  man  who  called  his  name  Thomas  had  ever 
been  there  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  Who? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  mean  the  man  who  called  himself  Thomas. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Is  that  admissible  ? 

The  Court.  I  cannot  see  the  applicability  of  that  testimony. 


Trial  of  joiin  h.  surratt.  275 

(Question  willidrawn.) 

Q.  Have  you  seen  this  man  Thomas  since  ? 

A .  I  have  not. 

CroPS-examination  : 
By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Mr.  Bradley:  ]\Iay  it  please  your  honor,  in  entering  upon  a  cross-examina- 
tion of  this  witness,  we  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  waiving  the  benefit  of 
any  exception  that  we  have  taken. 

Q.  Did  not  the  Prince  George's  county  and  the  Charles  county  stage  start 
from  your  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  During  all  that  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  great  many  passengers  going  to  and  from  there  came  to  your  house  1 

A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Y''ou  saw  Mr.  Surratt  meeting  and  talking  with  people  who  came  and  went 
away  ] 

A.  AVell,  I  cannot  say  anything  in  regard  to  that.  I  remember  his  face — 
that  is  all. 

Q  The  stage  that  I  refer  to  is  the  one  that  goes  down  to  Surrattsville,  "  T 
B,"  and  Leonardtown  and  Port  Tobacco  ? 

A.  Y'^es,  sir ;  1  understand. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  The  stage  office  is  at  your  house  isn't  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  tiiose  places  on  the  road  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  Did  the  stage  that  went  to  Surratt's  tavern  start  at  the  same  tune  with  the 
stage  that  wont  to  Port  Tobacco  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q    And  at  what  time? 

J\[r.  3IERKICK.  It  was  the  same  stage  wasn't  it? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  it  start  ? 

A.  It  started  at  8  o'clock. 

Q.  In  giing  that  way?  ' 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  at  what* lime  did  it  return. 

A.   It  returned  between  5  and  6  generally. 

Q.  The  Port  Tobacco  stage  and  the  Surrattsville  stage  were,  I  understand 
you  to  say,  different  stages  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  the  same  line,  although  there  were  two  stages.  They 
run  to  "T  B,"  on  the  same  road,  and  there  they  took  different  roads. 

Mr.  liRADLKV.  That  is,  "T  B"  is  beyond  Surrattsville;  and  they  run  by 
Surrattsville  on  the  same  route  ? 

A.   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Passengers  came  and  went  by  both  stages  as  far  as  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  Y''es,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradlkv.  I  forgot  to  ask  one  question.  You  said  that  you  saw  Atze- 
rodt  on  the  loth,  after  o  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Can  you  state  whether  it  was 
near  about  tlie  time  of  the  departure  of  the  morning  train — G.15  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  wish  to  correct  that.  I  did  not  see  him  after  2  o'clock.  It 
was  my  servant  who  saw  him  at  that  time.     You  will  find  it  so  ill  print. 


276  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  After  you  last  saw  him,  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  I  retired  after  that — went  to  bed. 

Q.   When  did  you  get  up  ] 

A.  About  6  o'clock. 

Q.  You  were  asked  about  this  man  Thomas.  Did  you  see  him  after  you 
went  to  bed  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  or  a  person  who,  you 
thought,  resembles  him  very  strongly? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  saying  on  the  occasion  of  the  conspiracy  trial  that  "he 
(pointing  to  Spangler)  resembles  him  somewhat,  but  he  is  not  so  dark,  and  has 
not  the  beard  that  Thomas  had  "? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  did  not  have  a  beard. 

John  M.  Llovd — residence,  Washington — sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  "Where  do  you  live  ? 

A.  On  the  Island,  Washington  city. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  residing  in  the  city  ? 

A.  I  think  I  moved  up  from  the  country  in  October,  1865. 

Q.  Where  had  you  been  living  previous  to  that  1 

A.  I  had  been  living  at  Surrattsville  for  a  short  time. 

Q.  You  are  a  native  of  this  city  1 

A.  With  the  exception  of  an  intermission  of  three  years,  I  have  been  re- 
siding here  for  the  past  fifteen  or  twenty  years. 

Q.  I  believe  you  were  a  witness  before  the  conspiracy  trial,  were  you  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  unfortunately. 

Q.  Will  you  state  where  you  lived  in  the  year  1865  ? 

A.  I  moved  to  Surrattsville  about  the  last  of  December,  1864.  I  resided  at 
Surrattsville  up  to  October,  1865, 

Q.  How  far  is  that  from  this  city  ? 

A.  1  have  always  been  told  that  it  was  about  ten  miles  from  the  bridge. 

Q.  It  is  in  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whose  house  did  you  occupy  ? 

A.  That  of  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Mary  E.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  her  before  the  conspiracy  trial?  • 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  there  ? 

A.  That  of  hotel-keeping  and  farming. 

Q.  You  kept  the  hotel  at  Surrattsville  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  and  engaged 
in  farming  at  the  same  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt. 

A.  I  do  not  see  him.  (Turning  his  eyes  in  the  direction  of  the  prisoner.)  I 
believe  that  is  Mr.  Surratt. 

(The  prisoner  was  here  requested  to  stand  up.     The  witne.'JS  then  said  :) 

A.  That  is  him  ;  I  know  him ;   I  had  a  short  acquaintance  with  him. 

Q.  And  you  now  recognize  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  knew  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Surratt  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  277 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  my  acquaintance  with  them  was  very  short  the  whole  time. 

Q.  Did  you  rent  this  house  of  her  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  one  David  E.  Herold  ? 

A.  I  knew  David  E.  Herold  ;  he  was  at  my  house  on  several  occasions ;  I 
first  saw  him,  I  think,  at  Mr.  Birch's  sale. 

Q.  You  saw  him  several  times  afterwards  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  at  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  one  George  A.  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  never  knew  him  by  that  name  imtil  two  weeks  before  the  assassination ; 
I  used  to  call  him  by  the  name  of  Israel. 

Q.  By  what  name  did  the  prisoner  call  him  ? 

A.  Well,  he  came  in  there  one  morning  with  him,  and  laughingly  stated 
something  about  somebody  calling  him  "Port"  Tobacco  ;  that  is  the  only  time  I 
ever  heard  the  name  made  use  of. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  at  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  1  will  ask  you  if  you  ever  saw  David  E.  Herold,  George  A.  Atzerodt,  and 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar  in  company  together  ? 

A.  One  morning,  probably  about  five  or  six  weeks  before  the  assassination, 
Surratt  and  Atzerodt  came  to  my  house ;  Herold  had  been  there  the  night  be- 
iore,  and  said  that  he  was  obliged  to  go  to  "T  B"  that  night;  he  stopped  iu 
there,  and  was  playing  cards ;  he  played  several  games  ;  the  next  morning 
Surratt  and  Atzerodt  drove  up. 

Q.  You  saw  the  three  then  at  your  house  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Not  until  after  that. 

Q.  When? 

A.  About  half  an  hour  after  that ;  Surratt  and  Atzerodt  left  and  went  down 
the  road,  and  I  supposed  in  the  direction  of"TB;"  they  all  three  returned 
together,  Atzerodt,  Herold,  and  Surratt. 

Q.  Now  we  have  them  all  three  at  your  house ;  state  what  they  did. 

A.  There  were  several  other  persons  besides  them  there  at  the  time.  I  there- 
fore paid  no  particular  attention  to  them.  They  came  in  and  took  a  drink,  probably, 
and  were  playing  cards,  as  well  as  I  remember.  After  awhile  Surratt  called  me 
into  the  front  parlor,  and  said  hq  wanted  to  speak  to  me.  There  I  saw  lying 
on  the  sofa  what  I  supposed  to  be  guns.  They  had  covers  on  them.  Besides 
these  there  were  two  or  three  other  articles. 

Q.  State  what  the  other  articles  were. 

A.  One  was  a  rope — a  bundle  of  rope  as  big  around,  I  suppose,  as  my  hat,  (a 
black  felt  hat  of  ordinary  size.)  It  was  coiled  rope.  I  should  think  from  the 
size  of  the  bundle  that  there  was  not  more  than  18  or  20  feet  in  it.  I  took  it  to 
be  an  inch  and  a  quarter  rope. 

Q.  What  other  articles  do  you  think  of? 

A.  There  was  a  monkey-wrench. 

Q.  If  you  saw  those  things  again  would  you  be^able  to  identify  them  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  could. 

Q.  State  what  the  prisoner  said  to  you  about  those  things  after  he  had  shown 
them  to  you. 

A.  He  wished  me  to  receive  those  things  and  to  conceal  the  guns.  I  objected 
to  it,  and  told  him  I  did  not  wish  to  have  such  things  iu  the  iiousc  at  all.  lie 
assured  me  po.-'itively  that  there  should  be  no  danger  from  them.  I  still  per- 
sisted in  refusing  to  receive  them,  but  finally,  by  assuring  me  most  positively  that 
there  would  be  no  danger  in  taking  theio,  he  induced  me  to  receive  them.  Ho 
did  not  say  what  sort  of  guns  they  were,  as  well  as  I  remember. 


278  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  State  what  you  did  after  you  consented  to  receive  and  conceal  them. 

A.  I  told  him  there  was  no  place  about  the  premises  to  conceal  such  things 
at  all,  and  that  I  did  not  wish  to  have  them  there.  He  told  me  then  of  a  place 
where  he  knew  it  could  be  done.  He  then  carried  me  up  into  a  back  i"oom  from 
the  storeroom. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  been  in  that  room  before  ? 

A.  Never.  I  supposed  the  place  was  finally  closed  up.  I  did  not  know  that 
there  was  anything  kept  there  at  all.  I  tried  on  several  occasions  to  get  iu 
there  to  have  it  occupied  fur  a  servant's  room,  for  persons  passing  backwards 
and  forwards  very  frequently  stopped  there  in  the  winter  with  servants,  and  I 
had  no  jdace  to  put  them,  but  had  to  let  them  lie  down  stairs  on  my  lounge. 

Q.  After  you  and  the  prisoner  went  into  this  room  wiih  these  articles,  state 
what  you  did. 

A.  I  put  them  in  an  opening  between  the  joists  of  the  second  story  of  the 
ma'n  building. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  other  articles  that  you  have  omitted  that  he  brought 
to  you  at  that  time? 

A.  Nothing  more  was  brought  at  that  time. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  there  was  any  ammunition  brought  there. 

A.  There  was  a  cartridge-box  brought  there.  Whether  it  was  full  of  ammu- 
nition or  not,  I  am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  it  to  see  whether  or  not  there  was  any  in  it? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  did  not  examine  anything  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  conceal  that  with  the  guns  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   that  was  put  with  the  guns. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  rope  and  the  monkey-wrench  1 

A.  I  left  the  monkey-MM-ench  and  rope  at  Surrattsville  when  I  moved  away. 
What  has  become  of  them  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  What  part  of  that  building  did  you  deposit  these  articles  iu  ? 

A.  I  deposited  them  iu  the  storeroom. 

Q.  Explain  that. 

A.  The  storeroom  is  a  plnce  where  we  kept  barrels  of  liquor  and  such  like. 

Q.  It  was  not  the  same  place  where  the  guns  were  put  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  State  how  long  Surratt  wanted  you  to  keep  these  articles. 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  only  wanted  me  to  keep  them  two  or  three  days,  and 
that  he  would  take  them  away  at  the  end  of  that  time.  On  that  condition  I 
consented,  and  that  alone. 

Q.  Did  anything  else  pass  between  you  and  the  prisoner  at  that  time  1 

A.  Nothing  more,  as  far  as  I  remember. 

Q.  What  afterwards  happened  between  these  parties  ? 

A,  I  do  not  know  of  anything  particular  happening  after  that,  except  that 
they  engaged  in  playing  card?. 

Q.  How  long  did  they  stay  at  your  house  playing  cards  after  those  things 
had  been  concealed  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  distinctly,  but  probably  half  an  hour. 

Q.  What  did  they  then  do  ? 

A.  They  left. 

Q.  Did  they  leave  in  company  with  each  other  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  say  ;  I  did  not  see  them  when  they  left.  They  all  went 
out  on  the  porch  together,  as  well  as  I  remember. 

Q.  When  was  the  next  time  you  saw  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  I  think  1  met  him  two  or  three  days  after  that,  going  down  to  Surratts- 
A'ille,  and  I  supposed  at  the  time  that  he  was  going  to  take  those  things  away  ; 
and  I  said  nothing  to  him  about  them. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  at  all  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT.  279 

A.  Nothing  more  tlian  that  he  asked  me  if  he  could  get  his  breakfast  down 
there.  I  tokl  him  I  thought  so — some  ham  and  eggs.  I  was  ou  my  way  to 
Washington  when  I  met  him.     He  got  his  breakfast  there,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  any  more  after  that  1 

A.  I  saw  Surratt  again  after  that,  as  well  as  I  remember,  on  the  25th  of  March. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  again  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  met  him  about  a  week  after  that  on  the  stage  about  four  or  five  miles 
thi^ide  of  Surrattsville,  returning  to  Washington,  while  I  was  returuiughome. 
He  was  on  the  stage  and  I  was  in  my  buggy. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  any  more  ] 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  until  now. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Atzerodt  after  this  interview  that  you  have  described  ? 

A.  I  saw  Atzerodt,  I  think,  once  after  that. 

Q.  Where  was  that  1 

A,  I  met  him  about  at  the  Selbyville  post  office.  That  is,  T  met  hirn  twice 
that  day.  I  met  him  once  ou  the  Navy  Yard,  and  in  the  evening  while  he  was 
coming  on. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  them  all  in  company  together  after  that  1 

A.  No,  sir.  1  think  that  was  the  only  time  I  ever  saw  them  all  in  com- 
pany, that  I  remember  of. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  you  knew  Mrs.  Surratt  and  rented  this  house  from 
her.  I  will  ask  if  you  saw  her  shortly  before  the  assassination  of  the  Presi- 
dent ;  and  if  so,  when  and  where  you  saw  her  ? 

Witness.  I  do  not  wish  to  go  into  the  examination  of  Mrs.  Sunatt,  as  she  is 
not  here  to  answer  before  this  tribunal. 

The  DisTUicT  Attok.xey.  The  court  will  tell  you  whether  the  question  is 
a  proper  one  or  not.     You  will  answer  the  question  if  you  please. 

Witness.  I  cannot,  Mr.  Carrington,  unless  the  court  compels  me. 

The  District  Attorney.  Very  well ;  the  court  will  say  whether  it  is  a 
proper  question. 

The  Court.  What  is  the  question  ? 

The  District  Attorney.  I  asked  him  if  he  saw  Mrs.  Surratt,  the  person  of 
whom  he  rented  this  house,  shortly  before  the  assassination  of  the  President. 
If  so,  when  and  where  it  was  that  he  saw  her. 

The  Court.  (To  the  witness,)  You  will  have  to  auswer  the  question. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  will  repeat  it.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Surratt,  tlie 
lady  of  whom  you  rented  this  house  at  Surrattsville,  shortly  before  the  assassi- 
nation of  the  President  1 

A.  I  met  her  on  two  occasions. 

Q.  State  where  it  was  the  first  time  ? 

A.  The  first  time  I  saw  her  was  in  Uniontown.  I  think  it  was  the  Tuesday 
previous. 

Q.  Previous  to  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  in  whose  company  she  was  ? 

A.  She  was  in  company  with  a  young  man  whose  name  I  did  not  know. 
Since  that  time,  however,  I  have  discovered  his  name  to  be  Weichmann. 

Q.  Where  was  she  standing  or  sitting  ? 

A.  She  was  sitting  in  the  buggy  alongside  of  Mr.  Weichmann,  in  one  of  these 
high  narrow  buggies. 

Q.  State  if  you  had  any  conversation  with  her;  and  if  so,  state  what  was  said 
by  you  both  at  that  time  '? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Tuesday  or  Friday  1 

The  District  Attorney.  I  am  referring  to  Tuesday. 

The  Court.  What  day  uf  the  month? 


280  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

The  District  Attorney.  The  Tuesday  before  the  asscassination,  is  the  way 
the  witness  fixes  it  in  his  mind. 

Witness.  She  made  use  of  a  remark  to  me — called  my  attention  to  some- 
thing that  I  couldn't  understand. 

Mr.  Merrick.  "Who  did  1 

Witness.  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Just  state  what  was  said,  or  the  substance  of  it,  not   your 
understanding  of  what  was  said,  or  your  failure  to  understand  what  was  saiTl, 

Witness.  I  do  not  wish  to  state  one  solitary  word  more  than  I  am  compelled  to. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  does  not  make  any  difference. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  suppose  you  do  not,  but  it  is  your  duty  to 
state  what  you  know  about  this  matter. 

The  Court.  State  what  was  said,  as  far  as  you  recollect,  whether  you  under- 
stood it  or  not. 

Witness.  She  tried  to  draw  my  attention  to  something. 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  what  she  tried  to  do.  State  what  she  did  say  and 
did  do. 

Witness.  She  finally  came  out  and  asked  me  about  some  shooting  irons 
that  were  there. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  At  Surrattsville,  as  I  supposed. 

Mr.  Merrick.  She  did  not  say  that  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir. 

The  District  Attorney.  You  have  been  cautioned  several  times  not  to 
state  any  inference  that  you  drew  from  the  conversations.  You  are  not  expected 
to  give  the  precise  words,  but  the  substance  of  the  conversation  as  near  as  you 
can  recollect  it. 

Witness.  Well,  really 

The  District  Attorney.  You  have  already  testified  about  this  matter  ? 

Witness.     I  have. 

The  District  Attorney.  Well,  now  state  what  was  said. 

Witness  I  cannot  do  it  unless  I  do  it  in  my  own  way.  It  is  out  of  the 
question. 

Mr.  jMerrick.  In  your  own  way,  of  course,  but  only  state  what  you  recollect 
she  said,  not  your  impressions. 

The  Court.  Give  the  substance  of  what  you  recollect  she  said.  We  do 
not  expect  you  to  be  able  to  recollect  the  exact  words. 

Witness.  As  well  as  I  recollect,  in  speaking  of  the  shooting  irons,  she  told 
me  to  have  them  ready ;  that  they  would  be  called  for,  or  wanted,  soon,  I  forgot 
now  which.  Either  expression  sounded  to  me  as  if  it  amounted  to  the  same 
thing,  for  I  was  satisfied. 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  what  you  were  satisfied  about. 

Witness.  I  desire  to  state  my  reasons. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  do  not  care  about  your  reasods. 

Q.  Now  state  what  you  said  to  her  1 

A.  When  she  made  this  remark,  I  told  her  that  I  was  very  uneasy  about 
those  things  being  there  ;  that  I  had  understood  the  house  was  going  to  be 
searched,  and  I  did  not  want  to  have  those  things  there ;  that  I  had  a  great 
notion  to  have  them  taken  out  and  buried,  or  done  something  with. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  then? 

A.  The  conversation  then  di'opped  on  that,  and  turned  on  John  Surratt.  I 
told  her  I  had  understood  that  tlie  soldiers  were  after  John  to  arrest  him  for 
going  to  Ilichmond.  1  had  understood  that  he  had  gone  there.  She  laughed 
very  heartily  at  the  idea  of  anybody  going  to  Richmond  and  back  again  in  six 
days,  and  remarked  that  he  must  be  a  very  smart  man  indeed  to  do  it. 
Q.  Anything  more  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  281 

A.  Tli.it  was  about  the  substance  of  the  conversation  that  passed  between 
Mrs.  Sv.rratt  and  myself  at  that  interview.  It  did  not  last  longer  than  between 
five  and  ten  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  any  more  from  that  time  until  the  14th  of  April,  the  day 
of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  She  was  there  on  the  evening  of  the  Friday  of  the  assassination,  I  think. 

Q.  Not  before  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  long  before  that,  but  not  any  day  before  it. 

Q.  Not  between  Tuesday  and  Friday? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  where  you  were  on  the  14th  of  April,  1S65  'I 

A.  I  was  in  Marlboro',  attending  the  trial  of  a  man  who  had  stabbed  me. 

Q.  You  were  a  witness  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  return  home  ? 

A.  I  staid  in  Marlboro'  for  some  time  after  the  trial  was  over,  drinking  and 
playing  cards.  I  didn't  leave  there  until  pretty  late ;  I  suppose  it  was  five  or 
six  o'clock,  may-be  later,  when  I  got  home.  I  do  not  remember  distinctly,  but 
it  appears  to  me  in  the  confuted  memory  I  have  of  it,  that  the  sun  was  not  more 
than  half  an  hour  high  when  I  got  home.     It  did  not  appear  to  me  so. 

Q.  What  persons  did  you  find  at  home  when  you  got  there  ? 

A.  I  found  a  good  many  gentlemen  there — I  suppose  some  ten  or  twelve.  I 
saw  there,  among  others.  Mrs.  Surralt  and  this  man  Weichman. 

Q.  State  if  you  then  had  any  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt;  and  if  so,  on 
what  part  of  your  premises,  and  what  that  conversation  was. 

A.  When  I  drove  up  in  my  buggy  to  thi-  back  yard,  Mrs.  Surratt  came  out 
to  meet  me.  She  handed  me  a  package,  and  told  nie,  as  well  as  I  remember,  to 
get  the  guns,  or  those  things — I  really  forget  now  which,  though  my  impression 
is  that  "guns"  was  the  expression  she  made  u.^e  (.f — and  a  couple  of  bottles  of 
whiskey,  and  give  them  to  whoever  should  call  for  them  that  night. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  her  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  made  any  reply  to  her  at  all.  I  was  in  liquor  at 
the  time,  and  being  so,  I  did  not  want  to  have  any  conversation  with  her. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  stay  there  after  tliis  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.  I  went  into  my  back  room  and  threw  myself  on  the 
lounge,  when  1  immediately  turned  sick  from  the  eftect  of  the  liquor.  As  I  was 
raising  up  she  came  in  and  told  me  that  her  buggy  spring  was  broken,  and  that 
I  must  do  something  to  mend  it.  I  told  her,  as  well  as  I  remember,  that  I  bad 
nothing  to  do  it  with,  only  to  tie  it  with  some  rope  yarn  that  I  had. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  time  that  was  ? 

A.  That  was  late  in  the  evening  after  I  got  home. 

Q.  Before  dark  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  fixed  up  her  buggy  for  lin-,  how  long  did  she  stay  ? 

A.  She  and  Weichman  got  in  then  and  drove  off. 

Q.  You  speak  of  a  package  which  she  siiowed  you  at  that  time.  What  was 
it? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  the  package  until  probalily  an  hour  later  or  more. 

Q.  When  did  you  notice  it  ? 

A.  I  thought  of  it  and  carried  it  up  stairs,  and  it  feeling  rather  light,  my  cu- 
riosity led  me  to  open  it  to  see  what  it  c  )ur>iiaeJ.  I  read  in  printed  letters  on 
the  front-piece  of  it,  "field  glass.''     Tliese  tt-t.rers  were  on  a  small  part  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  think  3'ou  would  know  it  if  vou  were  to  see  it? 

A.   I  do  not  know  that  I  should. 

Q.  Y'^ou  discovered  that  about  an  lumv  ;ift  rwards  ;  what  disposition  did  you 
make  of  it  at  that  time  ? 

19 


282  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SITRRATT. 

A.  I  put  it  with  the  other  things. 

Q.  You  mean  with  the  gun  and  cartridge-box  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  any  of  these  parties  to  wjjom  I  have  called  your  at- 
tention— Surratt,  Atzerodt,  or  Herold — coming  to  your  house  that  night,  after 
this  interview  ? 

A.  Herold  was  there  about  12  o'clock  that  night. 

Q.  The  same  person  who  was  at  your  house  on  Tuesday  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  in  company  with  him  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Describe  the  man  as  well  as  you  can,  and  whether  there  was  anything 
the  matter  with  him  that  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  The  man — he  was  on  horseback — looked  to  me  to  be  about  the  size  of 
Mr.  Wilson,  the  assistant  district  attorney,  with  a  big,  heavy  moustache.  His 
moustache  was  the  only  thing  noticeable  about  him,  as  far  as  I  remember.  He 
Avas  on  a  large  horse. 

Q.  Did  he  dismount  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  anything  was  the  matter  with  him — Avhether  he 
complained  of  anything  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  asking  the  witness  to  state  what  the  man  said,  is  it 
not? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  sir.  Whatever  he  said  and  did  we  offer  in  evidence. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  consider  all  the  declarations  of  these  parties 
evidence,  and  if  that  is  so,  certainly  what  a  man  says  in  reference  to  a  com- 
plaint is. 

The  Court.  All  declarations  of  the  conspirators  are  evidence.  Trie  first 
inquiry,  however,  to  be  instituted  is  as  to  whether  he  was  one  of  the  conspira- 
tors. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  expect  to  show  he  was. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  expect,  your  honor,  in  a  few  minutes,  to  show  that  it 
was  Booth. 

The  Court.  If  you  do  not  do  that  the  evidence  will  be  ruled  out. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Of  course,  your  honor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  effect  will  have  gone  to  the  jury. 

The  Court.  In  order  to  avoid  any  effect  of  that  sort,  suppose  you  stop  the 
examination  on  this  point,  just  here,  and  proceed  to  introduce  your  proof  as  to 
its  being  Booth. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Very  well,  sir  ;  we  will  accept  of  the  suggestion  of  your 
honor,  and  stop  the  examination  on  this  point  here,  and  after  we  have  made  the 
j)roof  to  which  we  have  referred  call  him  back. 

The  Court.  That  will  be  the  better  way. 

Q.  State  what  Herold  said  about  that  time. 

A.  Herold  said  when  he  came  into  the  house — when  I  opened  the  door — "Mr 
Lloyd,  for  God's  sake  make  haste  and  get  those  things."  He  did  not  name  what 
things  they  were. 

Q.  When  he  said  that  what  did  you  do  ? 

A    I  went  up  stairs  and  got  them. 

<^.  What  things  ? 

A.  I  got  one  of  the  guns,  the  field-glass,  and  the  cartridge-box,  which  was  all 
1  could  bring  down  at  that  time,  and  I  did  not  go  back  any  more. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  give  those  things  ? 

A.  To  Herold. 

Q.  Did  you  offer  anything  to  the  other  person  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did.  I  do  not  know  whether  the  other  person  took  any- 
thing or  not.     If  he  took  anything  at  all,  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  field-glass 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  283 

Q.  State  what  occurred  after  that ;  what  further  Herold  ?aid  to  you. 
A.  I  do  not  remember  of  Herold  saying  anything  particularly.     He  took  the 
things  and  rode  towards  the  stable.     On  his  return  he  got  between  the  other 
man  and  myself,  and  then  they  both  rode  off  down  the  road.     Herold  did  not 
stop  at  all  when  he  returned,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  Herold  say  anything  to  you  in  addition  to  what  you  Jiave  already 
stated  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  as  to  what  he  or  anyone  else  had  done  that  night  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  did.  I  do  not  remember  of  having  any  conversation 
v/itli  Herold  at  all. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  thinkthat  is  going  about  far  enough  on  a  direct  examination. 

Q.  How  about  the  v/hiskey  ?     Did  you  give  them  anything  to  drink  ? 

A.  I  think  Herold  called  for  something  to  drink.  I  said  two  bottles,  as  well 
as  I  remember,  but  in  reality  I  do  not  know  exactly  which  bottle  he  drank  out 
of.     I  was  under  the  impression  that  it  was  the  bottle  I  had  filled  for  him. 

Q.  Did  he  drink  ? 

A.  I  suppose  he  did.  The  man  talked  as  if  he  was  drunk ;  he  was  drunk, 
in  fact. 

Q.  What  became  of  this  bottle  of  whiskey  1 

A.  There  was  no  whiskey  taken  away  in  a  bottle.  The  bottle  of  Avhiskey 
he  took  out  was  returned. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  kind  of  horses  these  persons  were  riding  ? 

A.  I  only  had  a  casual  view  of  the  horses.  One  of  them  I  took  to  be  a  gray 
horse,  and  the  other  a  bay.  The  largest  horse  was  a  light-colored  horse.  I 
cannot  say  for  a  certainty  Avhether  it  was  gray,  or  what  color.  It  looked  more 
like  a  -yhite  horse  than  a  gray. 

Q.  Did  you  know  at  that  time  of  the  assassination  of  the  President,  or  had 
you  heard  anything  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  what  he  heard  at  all. 
'  The  District  Attorney.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  it?     That  would  be 
evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  the  court  please,  I  see  the  drift  of  the  question.  He  wants 
to  get  at  what  the  other  man  Avho  was  with  Herold  said. 

The  Court.  He  will  do  that  by-and-by,  when  he  gets  it  in  the  proper  shape 
for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  very  nicely  shaped  now,  but  not  quite  sharp 
enough. 

The  Court.  I  have  told  the  district  attorney  he  could  not  do  it  in  this  shape. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  asked  the  witness  if  he  heard  of  the  assassina- 
tion of  the  President  at  that  time,  or  if  he  heard  it  at  all. 

The  Court.  You  can  ask  the  witness  if  he  had  up  to  that  time  heard  of  the 
assassination  of  the  President. 

The  District  Attorney.  Or  heard  of  it  afterwards ;  and  if  so,  when  ? 

The  Court.  No.  I  do  not  see  how  what  he  learned  afterwards  could  have 
any  bearing  upon  this  examination.  If  Herold  said  anything  at  that  time,  of 
course  it  would  be  evidence. 

Mr.  PlERRErOiNT.  I  suppose  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  rule  of  law 
that  whatever  was  said  to  the  witness  at  this  time  in  Herold's  presence  can  be 
given  in  evidence,  as  also  the  description  of  the  man  that  he  there  saw  on  the 
horse,  as  well  as  his  condition ;  and  that  we  can  prove  his  name  by  another 
witness. 

The  Court.  Herold  being  one  of  the  conspirators,  whatever  was  said  in  bis 
presence  and  his  hearing  is  evidence.  If  the  witness  can  state  that  this  con- 
versation took  place  within  ear-shot  of  Herold,  it  will  be  evidence. 


284  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURKATT. 

Mr.  Bradley'.  Let  them  first  lay  the  foundation  as  to  whether  he  was  within 
car-shot. 

"Witness.  I  Avill  state  that  at  the  time  this  man  was  speaking  to  me  as  to 
Avhat  had  been  done  Herold  was  across  the  road.  That  is,  as  far  as  my  memory 
serves  me,  I  think  he  was. 

The  District  Attorney.  At  the  time  he  was  speaking  of  himself — com- 
plaining of  having  something  the  matter  with  him — was  Herold  present,  or  in 
such  a  position  that  he  could  hear  what  he  said  ? 

Witness.  I  believe  Herold  was  present  when  he  told  me  his  leg  was  broken. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Has  that  anything  to  do  with  Herold  ? 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Yes,  sir;  it  has. 

The  Court.  The  whole  conversation,  I  presume,  is  evidence. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  In  the  presence  of  Herold  he  said  his  leg  was  broken. 
What  further  did  he  say  after  saying  that  1 

The  Court.  In  Herold's  presence  and  hearing. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  court  will  rule  whether  he  can  go  on  and  state  what 
passed. 

The  Court.  I  have  ruled  that  whatever  Herold  said  is  evidence,  and  that 
whatever  the  other  person  said,  when  Herold  was  near  euougl^  to  hear  it,  is  also 
evidence. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT: 

Q.  What  did  he  say  about  his  leg  being  broken,  or  anything  else  ? 

The  Court.  In  Herold's  presence  and  hearing. 

Witness.  He  asked  me  if  there  were  any  doctors  in  that  neighborhood.  I 
told  him  only  one  that  I  knevy  of,  Dr.  Hoxton,  about  a  half  mile  from  there,  but 
that  he  did  not  practice.  He  told  me  so  himself.  He  said  he  must  try  and 
find  one  somewhere.  * 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  taking  any  gun  ? 

A.  He  was  opposed  to  taking  any  gun;  and  opposed  to  Herold  taking  one. 

Q.  Why  ? 

A.  Because  his  leg  was  broken. 

Q.  Did  he,  or  Herold,  mention  his  name  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  no  name  given  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  have  a  good  look  at  the  man  1 

A.  I  Avas  Close  to  him,  but  did  not  pay  particular  attention  to  hira.  He  ap- 
peared to  me  as  if  he  was  drunk. 

Q.  You  have  never  seen  him  since  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  That  is  about  the  substance  of  what  he  said.  The  conversation  did  not 
last  over  five  minutes. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  Secretary  Seward  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  witness  has  been  asked  a  dozen  times  to  state  all  that 
was  said  in  Herold's  presence  and  hearing. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  know  that.  He  says  he  doesn't  recollect  any  more  than 
he  has  stated,  but  now  I  am  directing  his  attention  to  a  particular  matter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  witness  has  just  said  that  when  the  other  conversation 
took  place  Herold  was  across  the  road;  am  I  right,  Mr.  Lloyd  ? 

Witness.  When  the  conversation  passed  as  to  Avhat  was  done  towards  the 
President,  Hertpld  was  across  the  road. 

The  Court.  Was  he  or  was  he  not  within  hearing  distance? 

Witness.  He  was  over  at  the  stable,  and  he  could  not  have  heard  from 
there.  The  distance  was  as  great  as  from  here  (witness  stand)  to  the  far  end  of 
the  wall  there,  (south  wall.) 

Tke  Court.  So  far  that  he  could  not  have  heard  ? 


\ 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN     tl      SURKATT.  28t) 

Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  beeu  examined  before  on  tbi^  subject  ? 

A.  Mr.  Carringtou  examined  me. 

Q.  Have  you  beeu  examined  before  any  otber  tribunal  ? 

A.  I  was  before  the  military  commission. 

Q.  You  were  examined  there,  were  you  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  Herold  was  there  talking  with  you,  what  did  this  man  who  said 
his  leg  was  broken  say,  further  than  what  you  have  already'  stated  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  said  anything  else.  He  may  have  done  so,  but 
if  he  did  it  has  escaped  my  memory,  except  that  portion  that  I  was  going  to 
tell  awhile  ago,  but  was  stopped. 

Q.  You  were  going  to  tell  something  else? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  suppose  it  will  come  out  hereafter. 

Q.  You  were  going  to  tell  something  else  that  the  man  with  the  broken  leg 
said,  v/ere  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  moon  at  that  time  ? 

A.  The  moon  was  up,  but  it  appeared  to  me  as  if  it  had  not  been  up  very  long. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  of  the  assassination  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  it  was  during  this  conversation,  I  object. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  your  honor  please,  this  is  important  and  legitimate  in 
many  respects.  It  is  important  and  legitimate  in  relation  to  this  meeting,  and 
the  conversation  of  these  persons.  It  is  important  in  every  light  that  can  possi- 
bly be  conceived  of,  that  the  witness  shall  state  when  he  first  heard  of  the  assas- 
sination. It  is  important  as  fixing  an  event  which  he  saw.  It  is  important  as 
fixing  an  incident  which  occurred.  I  submit  that  if  this  man  at  this  time  heard 
from  anybody,  or  from  any  source,  of  the  assassination,  it  is  evidence  proper  to  be 
given. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  have  not  a  v/ord  to  say  in  reply.  We  leave  it  with  the 
court  to  decide. 

The  Court.  He  can  state  when  he  first  heard  of  the  assassination  of  President 
Lincoln,  but  he  cannot  say  whether  or  not  the  person  whom  he  did  not  know,  and 
who  has  not  yet  been  identified  as  one  of  the  conspirators,  told  him  of  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  My  question  is  not  that.  It  is,  ''When  did  you  first  hear 
of  the  assassination  ?" 

Witness.  I  cannot  ansAver  that  question  until  this  other  is  settled. 

Mr.  Pierrei'ont.  Can't  you  ? 

Witness.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  cannot  say  whether  you  heard  of  it  a  week  after- 
vrards,  the  day  before,  or  that  night  ? 

A.  It  might  be  the  second  time. 

'Sh:  PiERREPONT.  My  (question  is  not  as  to  the  second  time.  I  ask  you  on 
yoiu"  oath  to  state  when  you  first  heard,  of  this  assassination. 

Witness.  If  I  answer  that  question,  it  v/ill  come  exactly  in  contact,  in 
my  opinion,  with  what  has  already  been  prohibited  by  the  court. 

The  Court.  You  can  answer  when  you  heard  it ;  but  you  cannot  say  who 
gave  it  to  you,  unless  it  was  given  to  you  by  somebody  who  Avas  known  as 
one  of  the  conspirators. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  now  ask  you  when  you  heard  it  ? 

Witness.  On  that  ground,  then,  I  cannot  answer.     (Laughter.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  did  not  ask  you  who  stated  it.  I  ask  you  when  you 
first  heard  it  1 

Witness    That  is  the  question  I  am  to  answer.     I  cannot  answer  it. 

The  Court.  You  must  answer  that  question  as  to  when  you  first  heard-  the 
news  of  the  assassination. 


/ 


286  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT 

Witness.  I  first  heard  it  that  uight. 

Q.  Were  they  then  both  before  your  house  ? 

A.  One  Avas  there.  I  do  not  know  that  both  were.  Herold,  I  think,  was 
across  at  the  stable. 

Q.  That  is  the  time  you  heard  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  the  man  with  a  broken  leg  was  too  far  from  Herold  to  have 
Herold  hear  him  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Could  he  see  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     There  v/as  nothing  intervening  between. 

Q.  You  were  close  to  the  man  with  a  broken  le'g  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  what  he  said  about  the  assassination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Is  that  evidence? 

Mr.  PfERREPOXT.  I  submit  that  what  was  told  the  witness,  whether  he  knew 
the  name  of  his  informant  or  not,  is  proper  evidence  in  the  case.  My  question  is 
as  to  what  the  man  with  the  broken  leg  on  the  horse  told  him.  If  he  told  him 
he  committed  the  assassination,  it  is  evidence  beyond  all  question. 

The  Court.  Is  there  any  objection  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Certainly,  if  your  honor  please,  unless  it  is  proved  that  the 
man  in  question  was  connected  with  this  conspiracy. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  We  have  proved  Herold  to  be  connected  v/ith  the  con- 
spiracy. 

The  CoLRT.  I  do  not  think  anything  could  draw  him  in  any  nearer  connection 
with  the  conspiracy  than  a  declaration  that  he  committed  the  act,  if  he  did 
say  so. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  should  think  not. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  have  nothing  to  say. 
*Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Will  you  please  state  what  he  said  and  what  he  did  ? 

Witness.  He  did  not  tell  me  directly  Avhat  he  did  himself.  The  expression 
he  made  use  of,  as  well  as  I  remember,  was  that  "he"  or  "  they"  had  killed  the 
President.     I  did  not  understand  which  it  Avas,  "he"  or  "they." 

Q,  Did  he  say  anything  about  any  other  man  1 

A.  Not  a  Avord. 

Q.  I  mean  as  regards  any  other  person  being  assassinated  1 

A.  I  am  not  certain;  but  I  think  it  is  possible  that  he  might  liaA'e  made  use 
of  Secretary  ScAA'ard's  name. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  ? 

A.  I  think  it  AA'as  him  A\dio  spoke  of  it,  but  I  will  not  be  altogether  certain 
about  it. 

Q.  By  Avhat  familiar  or  nick-name  did  you  hear  Atzerodt  called  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  him  called  \'ery  familiarly  by  any  name,  except  on  one  oc- 
casion, AA'heu  Surratt  told  me  that  some  ladies  had  dubbed  him  "  Port  Tobacco." 

Q.  It  Avas  Surratt  you  heard  call  him  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Herold  present  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir.' 

Q.  When  the  carbines  Avere  brought  in  AA-ere  they  covered  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  With  Avhat  kind  of  covers  ? 

A.  As  Avell  as  I  remember  they  had  gray  cloth  covers  on,  or  gray  Avoollon 
stuff. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  cover  off  from  one  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  taken  off? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURKATT.  287 

A.  I  saw  Heroic!  take  it  oft". 

Q.  Were  you  attracted  by  anything  peculiar  about  the  gun  or  the  breech 
of  it  ? 

A.  It  appeared  to  me  that  it  had  something  like  a  spring.  I  never  saw  a 
carbine  or  that  kind  of  a  gun  before. 

Q.  You  looked  at  that  ? 

A.  That  just  attracted  my  attention  as  he  uncovered  it  iu  my  presence. 

[Witness  was  requested  to  retire  from  the  stand  for  a  few  moments,  in  order 
that  another  witness,  in  whose  custody  these  various  articles  were,  might  be 
called  and  the  articles  produced.] 

Edwaki)  D.  Towxsend,  major  general  United  States  army — residence  iu 
Washington — sworn  and. examined. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorxey  : 

Q.  State  your  official  position,  if  you  please. 

A.  I  am  assistant  adjutant  general  of  the  army. 

Q.  Will  you  please  produce  a  field-glass  and  a  pin  placed  iu  your  custody  ? 

A.  The  glass  I  hold  in  my  hand ;  the  pin  I  have  in  this  paper,  (unfolding 
the  same  as  he  spoke.) 

Q.  State  from  whom  you  received  them  both,  and  when. 

A.  I  received  these  articles  as  the  assistant  adjutant  general,  in  charge  of  the 
Adjutant  General's  department,  from  General  Eckert,  Assistant  Secretary  of 
War,  as  he  was  about  retiring  from  office.     It  was  on  the  6th  of  August,  1866. 

Q.  They  have  been  in  your  possession  and  custody  since  that  time  ? 

A.  The  glass  was  given  over,  at  the  request  of  counsel,  to  Colonel  Conger  for 
two  or  three  days.  With  that  exception  they  have  both  been  in  my  possession 
since  that  time.     I  gave  the  glass  to  Colonel  Conger  on  the  13th  of  June. 

By  AJr.  PlERREPO.XT  : 

Q.  Is  this  the  same  glass  you  gave  to  him  ? 
A.  It  is. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Who  is  Colonel  Conger  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  he  is. 

Q.  Does  he  not  belong  to  your  corps  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  he  in  the  military  service  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  he  is  not  in  the  army. 

Q.  You  received  both  the  glass  and  the  pin  at  the  same  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Colonel  Conger  personally  ? 

A.  I  know  him  personally — by  sight. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  him  officially  at  all  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  bring  an  order  for  these  things  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  whom  ? 

A.  The  glass  was  put  iu  my  custody  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  upon 
the  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War  I  intrusted  this  to  Colonel  Conger.  Three 
days  afterwards  the  same  glass  precisely  was  returned  to  me,  as  I  know  from 
certain  marks  upon  it. 

Q.  How  about  the  pin  ? 

A.  The  pin  has  not  been  out  of  my  possession. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  the  date  when  the  field-glass  was  out  of  your  pos- 
session and  in  the  hands  of  Colonel  Conger  ? 


288  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  given  to  him  on  the  13th  of  June,  1867,  and  returned 
to  me  on  the  17th  of  June,  18G7. 

John  M.  Lloyd — examination  resumed. 

By  Mr.  PlERRBPONT  : 

Q.  See  if  you  see  any  mark  on  this  field-glass  that  you  ever  saw  before, 
(handing  witness  the  glass.) 

A.  (After  examining  the  same.)  It  is  my  impression  that  this  is  not 
the  kind  of  a  one  that  I  saw.  That  one  was  made  something  like  this,  but  just 
on  top  in  the  centre  here  was  printed,  in  larger  letters  than  these  are,  "  field- 
glass." 

Q.  Did  you  take  it  and  examine  it  at  all  ? 

A.  I  did  take  it,  and  attempt  to  look  through  it,  but  I  could  not  see  anything. 

Q.  You  could  not  see  through  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  do  not  know  what  anybody  wants  such  a  thing  as  this  for. 

Q.  Was  it  such  a  thing  as  this  1 

A.  This  resembles  it  very  much.  It  was  such  a  make  as  th's.  It  was  a 
double  glass. 

Q.  Was  it  like  this  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  say.  I  did  not  examine  it  closely.  I  can  only  say  that 
just  on  top  here  between  these  two  glasses  was  printed  in  yellow  letters,  "  field- 
glass." 

Q.  Turn  that  little  screw  there  and  tell  us  what  you  see  then  1 

A.  (After  turning  the  screw  as  directed.)  I  see  "  marine." 

Q.  Turn  it  further. 

A.  (Still  turning.)  I  see  "theatre,"  "  field,"  "  marine."  The  other  one  that 
I  saw  had  "  field-glass"  printed  just  between  these  two  glasses.  ,^ 

Q.  Was  it  printed  like  that  ? 

A.  Ilie  letters  were  larger  than  these. 

Q.  But  the  same  kind  of  letters  ? 

A.  The  letters  on  the  other  were  yellow. 

Q.  What  kind  of  letters  are  these  ? 

A.  That  I  can  hardly  tell. 

Q.  What  color  I  mean  ? 

A.  I  will  leave  that  to  somebody  who  has  a  little  better  eyesight. 

Q.  Was  it  in  a  case  like  that? 

A.  It  was  in  a  case  something  like  this,  wrapped  up  in  a  piece  of  paper. 

Q.  You  state  you  took  the  paper  off  the  package,  what  did  you  first  see? 

A.  My  curiosity  prompted  me  to  open  the  cover  of  it. 

(The  glass  was  here  handed  the  jury  for  inspection.) 

Q.  What  did  you  find  when  you  removed  the  paper  covering  1 

A.   I  found  an  instrument  a  good  deal  like  this. 

Q.  As  to  the  case  1 

A.  I  found  the  case  I  suppose,  something  similar  to  this.  It  was  a  leather 
case. 

Q.  You  found  that  first  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  opened  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whatever  Mrs.  Surratt  left  there  of  this  kind  you  gave  to  somebody  that 
night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  give  it  to  the  one  with  the  broken  leg,  or  Herold  ? 

A.  I  tlnnk  Herold  took  it  off.  As  well  as  I  remember,  I  did  not  go  outside 
of  the  gate  until  Herold  took  the  things.     I  think  Herold  took  them  out. 


'       TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H,    SURRATT.  289 

By  Mr.  Wilson  : 

Q.  Examine  those  guns  that  are  there,  and  state  if  you  can  identify  them. 

A.  This  breech  is  the  only  thing  that  attracted  my  attention. 

(Witness  took  the  gun  in  his  hand  and  pointed  out  to  the  jury  the  peculiar 
feature  about  it  that  attracted  his  attention.) 

Q.  Describe  the  cartridge-box  I 

A,  The  cartridge-box,  as  well  as  I  remember,  was  a  common  United  States 
cartridge-box.     I  think  "  U.  S."  was  on  it. 

Q.  State  whether  it  seemed  to  have  ammunition  in  it  from  its  weight  1 

A.  That  I  did  not  notice. 

Q.  Who  did  you  give  the  cartridge-box  to  ? 

A.  Herold  took  the  things  off  I  think. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  cartridge-box  since  you  gave  it  to  Herold  '? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  understand  that  these  things  are  presented  in  evi- 
dence. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  undei-stand  that  they  are  as  yet.  We  shall  offer 
them  in  evidence  shortly. 

The  Court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Examination  of  John  M.  Lloyd  continued. 
By  Mr.  Pierrecont  : 

Q.  When  Herold  was  there  getting  those  guns,  did  you  hear  him  use  the 

name  of  Booth  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  use  the  name  of  Wilkes  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Neither  one  nor  the  other  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  examined  in  relation  to  this  matter  befort;  ? 

A.  Several  times. 

Q.  When  were  yoa  first  examined,  and  by  whom  ? 

A.  I  was  first  examined  at  Bryantown,  by  Colonel  Wells. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  I  disremembcr  the  date.  I  think  it  was  on  Saturday,  a  week  after  the 
assassination. 

Q.  When  were  you  next  examined  ? 

A.  I  was  examined  by  two  different  persons  at  the  Carroll  prison,  or  partially 
examined. 

Q.  Was  your  first  examination  before  Colonel  Wells  reduced  to  writing  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  was. 

Q.  Who  were  the  two  persons  who  examined  you  in  prison  ? 

A.  1  did  not  know  either  of  the  names.  Judge  Olin,  1  have  since  found  out, 
had  an  interview  with  me,  and  there  was  a  military  officer  there. 

Q.  Did  they  come  at  the  same  time  or  at  different  times  ? 

A.  At  different  times.     The  military  officer  was  a  rather  small  man. 

Q.  Who  was  the  military  officer  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  his  name,  and  I  do  not  know  whether  I  found  out.  I  do 
not  know  whether  his  name  was  given  correctl}'  to  me  or  not.  I  think  some  of 
the  prisoners  described  him  as  Colonel  Foster. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  afterwards  ? 


290  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  am  not  positive  about  seeing  him  afterwards.  I  saw  a  man  at  the  con- 
spiracy trial  as  one  of  the  judges  who  looked  very  ranch  like  him. 

Q.  When  were  you  next  examined  1 

A.  I  was  next  examined  before  the  military  commission. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Bingham  ? 

A.  I  saw  Mr.  Bingham  there  :  I  am  not  personally  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  been  examined  by  him  except  when  examined  before  the 
military  commission  1 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  that  examination  by  Colonel  Foster  reduced  to  writing  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  taken  down.     He  had  a  young  man  there  taking  it  down. 

Q.  Have  you  testified  to-day  to  the  same  facts  you  testified  to  before  the  mil- 
itary commission  ? 

A.  I  may  have  been  mistaken  in  some  of  them.  My  memory  is  not  sufficient 
to  go  back  over  the  whole  that  has  transpired  here. 

Q.  At  the  time  of  your  examination  before  Colonel  Wells,  on  the  Saturday 
after  the  assassination,  was  he  accompanied  by  any  number  of  soldiers  ? 

A.  He  had  soldiers  all  round  there  outside,  and  some  inside  the  place. 

Q.  W^ill  you  state  whether  or  not,  at  the  time  of,  or  prior  to,  your  examination 
before  Colonel  Wells,  or  at  the  time  of  or  before  your  examination  before  Colonel 
Foster,  any  offer  of  reward  was  held  out  to  you  in  regard  to  your  evidence,  or 
any  threats  used  in  reference  to  your  testimony  ? 

A.  I  can  only  state  that  Mr.  (Nottingham,  who  had  me  with  him  before  send- 
ing me  to  Bryantown,  stated  that  he  wanted  me  at  Bryantown  to  look  after  par- 
ties, and  that  the  government  would  protect  me  in  my  property  and  support  me, 
and  see  that  I  was  returned  home. 

Q.  W^as  that  all  ? 

A.  That  Avas  all  Avitli  him. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  else  with  any  one  else  ? 

A.  While  I  was  there  in  Carroll  prison,  this  military  officer  came  there  and 
told  me  he  wanted  me  to  make  a  statement,  as  near  as  I  remember.  I  told  him 
I  had  made  a  fuller  statement  to  Colonel  Wells  than  I  could  possibly  do  to  him 
under  the  circumstances,  while  things  were  fresh  in  my  memory.  His  reply 
was  that  it  was  not  full  enough. 

Q.  What  else  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  that  it  was  not  full  enough,  and  then  commenced  questioning  me 
whether  I  had  ever  heard  any  person  say  that  something  wonderful  or  some- 
thing terrible  was  going  to  take  place.  I  told  him  I  had  never  heard  any  one 
say  so.     Said  he,  I  have  seen  it  in  the  newspapers. 

Mr.  PlERREPOi\T.  I  have  no  objection  to  this  if  it  is  pertinent.  Is  it  perti- 
nent to  examine  a  witness  as  to  what  he  said  to  an  officer  ? 

The  Court  said  he  thought  it  was  not  pertinent;  he  did  not  know  what  the 
object  was,  luiless  it  was  to  contradict  the  witness,  and  if  that  was  the  object 
the  proper  coiu-se  was  to  ask  him  if  he  had  not  on  such  an  occasion  said  thus 
and  so. 

Q.  You  state  that  that  military  officer  told  you  that  the  statement  you  had 
made  to  Colonel  Wells  Avas  not  sufficient  ? 

A.  He  said,  as  I  remember  that  it  was  not  full  enough. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  in  the  way  of  offering  a  reward,  or  use  any 
threat  towards  you,  tor  the  purpose  of  getting  you  to  make  it  fuller  ? 

A.  When  I  told  him  what  I  had  repeated  before,  that  I  did  not  remember  any 
person  saying  thus  and  so,  he  jumps  up  very  quick  off  his  seat,  as  if  very  mad, 
and  asked  me  if  I  knew  what  I  was  guilty  of.  I  told  him,  under  the  circum- 
stances I  did  not.  He  said  you  are  guilty  as  an  accessory  to  a  crime  the  pun- 
ishment of  which  is  death.     With  that  I  went  up  stairs  to  ray  room. 

Q.  Was  anything  else  said  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.   SURKATT.  291 

t 

A.  Nothing  more,  that  I  remember,  after  he  made  use  of  that  remark. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  said  to  George  AY.  Dent,  or  anybody  else,  that  at  the  time 
you  were  taken,  soon  after  this  assassination,  they  threatened  to  hang  you  un- 
less you  would  testify  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  that  you  did  testify  to  save 
your  life  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object  to  that  question,  although  it  has  been  answered, 
and  ask  that  the  answer  may  be  stricken  out. 

The  Court.  It  may  be  stricken  out.  It  was  not  relevant,  and  the  other 
side  is  concluded  by  the  answer. 

Q.  "Were  there  threats  used  towards  you  by  soldiers  at  the  time  of  your  ex- 
amination by  Colonel  Wells  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT,  I  have  no  doubt  as  to  what  the  answer  will  be,  but  at  the 
same  time  I  object  to  it.  Mr.  P.  then  stated  the  ground  of  his  objection,  that  the 
question  was  irrelevant  to  this  inquiry,  and  as  other  similar  questions  would  be 
put,  he  asked  for  a  decision  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Merrick,  after  argument,  suggested  that  as  his  colleague  (Mr.  Brad- 
ley) was  absent  for  a  moment,  he  desired  the  decision  to  be  withheld  till  he, 
Mr.  B..  could  be  heard,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  court  proceeded  with  the  ex- 
amination. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  had  not  examined  those  carbines  until  you 
delivered  them  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  think  I  examined  them  at  all,  and  did  not  examine  them 
that  night.     I  did  not  examine  them  at  all,  as  well  as  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  on  the  occasion  of  the  military  commission  that  you  took 
off  the  cover  from  one  of  them  and  that  the  peculiar  kind  of  breech  attracted, 
your  attention  ? 

A.  No  ;  I  do  not  think  that  was  ray  testimony.  I  think  it  was  when  Her- 
old  took  the  cover  off. 

Q.  You  do  not  think  you  testified  that  you  took  the  cover  off"? 

A.  I  think  not ;  in  fact,  I  am  pretty  certain  I  did  not. 

ilr.  Bradley  here  came  into  court,  and  after  argument  on  the  objection  above 
made  by  Mr  Pierrepont,  the  court  decided  that  counsel  might  cross-examine 
the  witness  in  reference  to  whether  he  had  or  had  not  received  any  promise  of 
reward,  or  had  or  had  not  received  any  threats,  in  regard  to  the  testimony  to  be 
given  by  him  on  this  occasion. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  do  not  wish  to  trespass  upon  the  ruling  of  the  court,  but 
to  bring  the  matter  more  distinctly  for  its  ruling,  we  propose  to  ask  the  witness 
this  question.  Whether  he  did  not  state,  in  substance  and  effect,  that  he  had 
been  threatened  with  being  hung  unless  he  made  oath  to  a  certain  written  state- 
ment made  out  for  him  to  swear  to,  which  written  statement  contained  the  sub- 
stance of  the  proof  given  by  him  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  believe  he  has  already  answered  that  question,  but  we 
object  to  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  add  to  the  question,  and  whether  he  did  not  also  say 
that  he  swore  to  that  ftatement  to  save  his  life,  and  whether  he  has  not  stated 
the  same  in  substance  and  effect  within  the  three  months  last  past  ? 

The  Court.  Referring  back  two  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes. 

Mr.  l'lERREPO.\T.  If  the  counsel  will  put  the  question  in  reference  u»  tliis 
trial,  we  do  not  object. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Certainly,  speaking  of  this  trial. 

3Ir.  Bradley.  I  was  going  to  add  to  the  question,  whether  \u:  did  not  say 
that  he  would  give  very  different  testimony  on  this  trial. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  That  is,  you  are  going  to  show  that  he  would  swear  differ- 
ently from  the  truth. 


292  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT. 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir  ;  that  he  would  swear  to  the  truth.  I  Avish  to  add  to 
the  question  whether  he  did  not  say  that  he  would  have  given  very  different 
evidence  if  he  had  not  been  put  in  fear  ? 

The  Court.  The  question  is  inadmissible  in  that  form.  You  may  put  the 
question  as  to  whether  he  has  had  any  promise  of  favor  or  reward,  or  any  hope 
of  reward  held  out  to  him,  or  any  threat  made  in  order  to  induce  him  to  testify, 
having  reference  to  this  trial. 

^Ir.  PiERREPONT.  That  we  do  not  object  to. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Let  me  finish  my  question— and  that  if  it  were  not  for  his 
previous  examination  he  would  give  different  testimony  now  ? 

The  Court.  The  question  is  overruled.  The  examination  must  be  confined 
to  such  threats  and  promises  as  were  made  with  reference  to  testimony  to  be 
given  upon  this  occasion. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  there  v/ere  certain  guns  concealed  by  you>  or 
that  you  were  requested  to  conceal  some  guns.  Will  you  state  whether  it  was 
any  uncommon  thing  to  conceal  guns  in  that  region  of  country  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  district  attorney. 

Objection  overruled.) 

A.  There  was  nothing  unusual  for  any  one  to  have  shot-guns  without  conceal- 
ing them. 

Q.  Were  not  the  military  taking  possession  of  fire-arms  in  that  neighbor- 
hood ■? 

A.  They  had  been,  as  I  understood. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  that  you  expected  the  house  would  be  searched 
about  that  time  ? 

A.  I  did  ;  I  got  information  that  they  were  searching  houses  in  that  neigh- 
borhood, and  removing  all  the  fire-arms  they  found.  From  all  I  could  learn, 
they  had  been,  previous  to  that  time,  searching  for  fire-arms  and  taking  them. 
Just  at  that  time  I  do  not  know  that  they  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  Mrs.  Surratt's  business  down  there  at  that  time  was  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  not  she  go  down  to  see  this  Mr.  Xothe  about  some  money  matters  1 

A.  I  do  not  know,  except  by  hearsay. 

Q.  Who  was  in  the  house  at  the  time  Mrs.  Surratt  was  there  ? 

A.  There  were  several  in  the  bar-room.  Alfred  Jarboe  stopped  there  on  his 
return  from  Atarlboro'.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Lusby,  Mr.  Jenkins,  and  seve- 
ral others  were  there — I  do  not  know  who  they  were. 

Q.  Was  there  a  lady  there  by  the  name  of  Mrs.  Offutt  ? 

A.  She  was  there. 

Q.  Who  was  with  Mrs.  Surratt  when  you  saw  her  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  was  alone  when  I  first  saw  her  ;  she  met  me  alone. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  the  back  yard  did  you  meet  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Near  the  wood  pile. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  door  ? 

A.  I  suppose  fifteen  or  tv/enty  feet,  probably. 

Q.  Was  it  between  the  quarters  and  the  kitchen  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  Mrs.  Offut  at  the  time  ? 

A.  She  was  in  the  yard  at  the  time ;  she  came  right  out  of  the  door  after 
Mrs.  Surratt  spoke  to  me. 

Q.  How  far  was  she  from  Mrs.  Surratt? 

A.  At  the  time  Mrs.  Surratt  spoke  to  me  I  suppose  she  was  fifteen  or  twenty 
feet;  she  was  right  at  the  door  and  Mrs.  Surratt  v/as  out  where  I  was. 

Q.  Was  one  of  Mrs.  Offutt's  children  out  there  at  the  time  I 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember ;  I  never  could  remember  even  who  took  my 
horse  and  buggy. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  293 

Q.  Did  not  you  see  anybody  take  it? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  at  all  who  took  it. 

Q.  You  say  you  came  up  from  Marlboro"  that  day.  What  had  you  I)een 
doing  down  at  Marlboro'  ? 

A.  I  was  summoned  there  at  court  to  attend  a  trial. 

Q,  Did  I  not  understand  you  to  state  that  you  had  been  playing  cards  and 
drinking  ? 

A.  1  did,  after  the  court  adjourned. 

Q.  When  did  the  court  adjourn  ? 

A.  I  think  about  three  o'clock. 

Q.  Had  you  not  been  drinking  during  the  day  ; 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  drank  anything  of  any  consequence  during  the  day. 

Q.  Had  you  drank  anything  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  drank  anything  until  the  court  adjourned.  I  knew  what 
effect  liquor  had  on  me. 

Q.  What  effect  ha:^  it  ? 

A.  A  very  singular  effect,  upon  my  mind  chiefly.  It  makes  me  forget  a 
great  many  things. 

Q.  How  much  did  you  drink  after  the  court  adjourned  ? 

A.  I  drank  enough  to  make  me  drunk. 

Q.  Were  you  very  drunk  ? 

A.  I  was  so  drunk  ihat  when  I  lay  down  I  felt  sick.     I  could  not  lie  down. 

Q.  Who  undressed  you  that  night  ? 

A.  I  suppose  I  undressed  myself;  there  was  nobody  else  there  to  do  it. 

Q.  Did  not  Mrs.  Offutt  take  off  your  coat  2 

A.  I  believe  so ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  lie  down  that  night,  after  Mrs.  Offutt  took  off  your  coat  ? 

A.  That  must  have  been  when  I  first  came  home;  when  I  threw  myself  on 
the  lounge. 

Q.  You  saw  Mrs.  Surratt  directly  when  you  got  home  1 

A.  Yes  ;  when  I  drove  up. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  she  staid  there  about  five  minutes  ? 

A.  About  that  long. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  who  took  her  horse  and  buggy  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection. 

Q.  How  long  after  Mrs.  Surratt  went  away  did  you  lie  down? 

A.  I  lay  down  before  she  left.  I  was  lying  down  on  the  lounge  when  Mrs. 
Surratt  came  in  and  asked  me  to  fix  the  buggy. 

Q.  Did  not  you  take  something  to  drink  after  she  went  away  that  night  ? 

A.  I  have  no  doubt  I  did. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  it? 

A.  I  am  not  positive  about  it.    I  may  have  done  so.    I  was  drinking  very  freely. 

Q.  When  you  get  drunk  do  you  jiist  lie  down  and  get  sober,  or  do  you  keep 
up  the  spreeing  'i 

A.  I  sometimes  keep  it  up  several  days. 

Q.  Had  not  you  fallen  into  a  bad  habit  of  getting  drunk  before  that  1 

A.  From  the  time  I  took  that  place,  and  often  previous  to  that,  I  was  in  the 
habit  of  taking  a  good  deal  of  liquor. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  place  is  it ;  a  surt  of  tavern  ? 

A.  A  hotel  or  tavern. 

Q.  You  had  charge  of  it ;  you  managed  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  liquors  in  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Then  you  were  a  good  customer,  as  well  as  your  friend  ? 

A.  Unfortunately  for  me,  I  was  the  best  customer. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  had  frequently  friends  coming  in  from  the  svrrounding 


294  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 


« 


neighborhood  to  drink,  and  that  you  found  a  plenty  of  persons  to   drink  with 
you  when  you  wanted  to  drink  ? 

A.  It  was  my  misfortune,  they  would  always  invite  me  to  drink. 
Q.  At  what  time,  the  next  morning,  did  you  wake  up  ?  * 

A.  I  suppose  the  sun  was'up  when  I  got  up  the  next  morning. 
Q.  Did  you  take  a  drink  as  soon  as  you  got  up  ? 
A.  I  commenced  drinking  as  soon  as  I  got  up. 
Q.  Your  mouth  felt  pretty  hot,  I  reckon  ? 
A.  I  believe  it  did. 

Q.  When  you  first  got  up  did  you  recollect  what  passed  the  night  before  ? 
A.  I  did  not  charge  my  mind  with  what  had  passed  the  night  before,  until 
the  soldiers  came.     After  they  came  they  assured  me  what  had  been  done. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  state,  in  reply  to  questions  in  chief,  something  about 
a  conversation,  and  what  had  happened;  now  I  want  that  whole  conversation. 
as  well  as  you  can  recollect  it. 
Witness.  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Merrick.  When  these  two  men  came  dov/n  there  that  night,  Herold  and 
somebody  else,  what  was  said  ? 

Witness.  You  have  already  got  most  of  that ;  about  everything,  in  fact. 
Q.  Did  not  you  testify  before  the  military  commission  that  you  were  asked 
by  one  of  them  if  you  did  not  want  to  hear  the  news  ? 
A.  Yes. 

Q.  And  that  you  replied  you  v/ere  not  particular,  or  did  not  v/ant  to  hear  it  ? 
A.  I  told  him  he  might  use  his  own  pleasure  about  that ;  that  I  did  not  cart 
anything  about  hearing  it. 

Q.  And  then  they  told  you  that  the  President  had  been  killed,  or  that  -  we 
have  killed  the  President  ? " 

A.  "We"  or  "they,"  I  do  not  remember  which. 
Q.  At  vi^hat  time  did  the  soldiers  get  down  there  ? 
A.  About  eight  o'clock.     I  had  not  been  up  very  long. 

Q.  You  say  they  told  you  that  they  had  killed  the  President,  but  that  you 
never  thought  much  about  it  until  the  soldiers  came  ? 

A.  I  thought  the  man  was  dri;nk.     I  paid  no  attention  to  it.     He  talked  to 
me  as  if  he  was  drunk. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  the  police  officers  came  oat  there? 
A.  I  recollect  when  Clarvoe  came. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Clarvoe  that  Herold  had  not  been  there  ? 
A.  I  do  not  recollect  distinctly  the  question  Clarvoe  put  to  me.     The  soldier? 
had  been  there  before  he  got  there. 

Q.  Why  cannot  you  recollect ;  v/ere  you  drunk  I 

A.  I  had  been  drinking  that  morning,  and  then  I  became  frightened  after  the 
soldiers  told  me  what  had  been  done,     I  did  not  know  what  to  do  or  how  to  act. 
Q.  Try  and  recollect  what  Clarvoe  said  to  you. 

A.  As  well  as  I  recollect,  he  told  me  there  was  money  enough  in  this  thing  to 
make  both  of  us  rich  if  I  would  give  him  any  information  I  possessed. 
Q.  Didn't  you  tell  him  then  that  neither  of  these  men  had  been  there  ? 
A.  I  may  have  done  so. 
Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  you  did  do  it  ? 

A.  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  I  did  do  it.     I  did  not  want  to  be  drawn  in  a.« 
a  witness  in  the  affair  at  all.     1  knew  that  Mrs.  Surratt's  name  would  be  drawn 
in  if  anything  was  said,  and  I  did  not  v/ant  to  say  anything  about  it. 
Q.  AVhat  did  you  tell  him  ? 

A.  I  really  cannot  tell  you  any  more.     All  these  men  were  coming  there 
that  morning,  and  were  applying  for  information. 
Q.  What  did  you  tell  Clarvoe  and  McDevitt  ? 
A.  I  think  T  told  them  I  knew  nothing  about  the  circumstances  at  all. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    li.    SURRATT.  295 

♦ 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  at  the  time  Mrs.  Surratt  held  this  conversation  with 
you  in  the  yard  ? 

A.  I  had  just  got  out  of  my  buggy,  and  was  bringing  in  some  fish  and  oysters 
I  hadigot  at  Marlboro'  into  the  house. 

Q.  She  was  talking  with  you  as  you  were  Avalking  along  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  when  she  handed  me  this  package. 

Q.  The  conversation  occurred  while  you  were  walking  ? 

A.  Pretty  much  as  we  were  walking. 

Q.  Were  you  walking  towards  Mrs.  Offutt  ] 

A.  I  am  not  certain  about  that;  I  was  walking  to\yards  the  hoa>e — towards 
the  kitchen  door. 

Q.  Was  not  Mrs.  Offutt  in  that  direction  ? 

A.  She  was  when  I  first  saw  her. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  taking  up  Mrs.  OffutL's  child '? 

A.  I  did  not  before  I  got  into  the  house. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  taking  it  up  in  the  house  ? 
.A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  ? 

A.  I  almost  always  did  when  I  met  it.     I  do  not  recollect  it  that  night. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Offutt  standing  near  enough  Mrs.  Surratt  to  hear  your  conver- 
sation 1 

A.  I  do  not  know  exactly ;  she  might  have  been. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  in  her  conversation  say  anything  about  where  John  was '? 

A.  We  had  no  conversation  at  all  at  that  time  except  about  the  delivery  of 
those  things. 

Q.  Had  you  been  drinking  when  you  met  Mrs.  Suratt  at  Uuiontown  ? 

A.  I  had  taken,  I  reckon,  probably  two  or  three  drinks. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  in  your  carriage  when  you  met  her  on  Tuesday  1 

A.  Mrs.  Offutt  and  child,  and  Walter  P.  Griffith. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  ^Irs.  Surratt  was  in  a  buggy  with  Mr. 
Weichman  I 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  suppose  so ;  I  did  not  know  him  at  all. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  about  that  conversation  ;  were  you  sitting  in  your 
carriage  when  it  took  place  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  our  carriage  had  passed.  I  did  not  recognize  her  until  she  was 
right  opposite.  She  had  passed  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet  when  I  saw  that  she 
was  holding  up.  I  drew  up  immediately,  and  got  out  and  went  to  her,  supposing 
she  wanted  to  see  me  about  business.  We  had  a  little  unfinished  business  in 
regard  to  the  crop  on  the  land.  I  judged  she  wanted  to  see  me  about  that,  and 
I  got  out  to  see  her.     It  was  then  that  the  conversation  occurred. 

Q.  Was  the  conversation  in  an  ordinary  tone  ?  * 

A.  About  as  loud  as  I  am  talking  to  you  ;  not  as  loud  as  you  are  speaking  to 
me.     It  was  in  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  in  that  conversation  about  John  ? 

A.  She  did. 

Q.  Did  she  say  where  he  was  ? 

A.  She  did  not  say  where  he  was,  but  left  tlie  impression  on  my  mind  that 
he  was  in  Canada. 

Q.  Have  not  you  said  that  she  told  you  he  was  in  Canada  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  You  say  you  delivered  these  various  articles,  guns  and  whiskey,  to  Herold 
that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not  deliver  the  whiskey  only  what  he  drank  out  of  the  bottle ;  he 
returned  the  bottle. 

Q.  Did  he  pay  you  for  it  ? 

A.  He  gave  me  a  dollar,  saying  at  the  same  time,  '•I  owe  you  a  couple  of 


296  TRIAL    OF    JOHN'    H,    SURRATT. 

dollars  ;  take  this."  That  was  all  the  pay  I  received  on  the  bill  and  whiskey 
together. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  night  was  that  ? 

A.  About  midnight. 

Q.  Who  roused  yon  up  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  probably  Herold  himself. 

Q.  Hallooing  about  ? 

A.  Very  likely. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  drink  before  you  went  down  ? 

A.  No  ;  I  do  not  think  I  drank  anything  that  night.  I  was  pretty  hot  and  I 
think  I  took  a  drink  of  water. 

Q.  Didn't  you  take  a  drink  while  they  were  there  1 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  lay  down  on  the  lounge,  and  that  it 
made  you  sick.  At  what  time  did  you  go  to  sleep  before  you  were  roused  up 
by  these  parties  coming  there  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  at  Avhat  time  I  retired  to  bed. 

Q.  At  what  time  do  you  think  it  was  ? 

A.  That  I  am  luiable  to  say,  because  I  never  charged  my  memory  with  it. 
It  was  not  very  late. 

Q.  Were  not  these  men  there  drinking  and  playing  cards  until  it  was  pretty 
late? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  nobody  play  cards  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  so  happened  that  when  I  was  at  Marlboro',  that  day,  playing 
cards  with  a  young  man,  I  got  mad  and  came  pretty  near  getting  into  a  fuss, 
and  -nhen  I  saw  him  there  that  night  I  prohibited  any  card-playing. 

Q.  He  was  there  that  night,  was  he  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  You  were  roused  at  12  o'clock :  you  went  down  outside,  and  after  that 
the  conversation  you  have  stated  took  place  ? 

A.  I  went  down  into  the  bar-room  first,  as  I  remember,  after  letting  Herold 
into  the  house. 

Q.  Did  he  get  down  from  his  horse  ? 

A.  O,  yes  ;  Herold  got  down  and  came  into  the  bar-room.  I  went  behind  the 
bar  and  set  out  these  bottles  of  whiskey ;  then  I  went  up  and  brought  the  carbine 
down,  if  it  was  a  cai-bine.  Herold  in  the  mean  time  was  out  at  the  front  gate, 
and  in  going  out  there  I  think  I  met  him ;  as  near  as  I  recollect,  I  gave  him  that 
thing,  brought  the  bottle  of  whiskey  in,  and  then  went  out  again. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  for  a  bottle  of  whiskey  ? 

A.  No ;  only  for  something  to  drink  ;   I  think  that  was  his  remark. 

Q.  Did  he  ask  you  for  a  gun  ? 

A.  No ;  he  mentioned  nothing  more  than  to  get  those  things. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  you  went  to  bed  tolerably  drunk  ? 

A.  I  do  not  deny  that. 

Q.  And  you  were  i-oused  up  about  12  o'clock?  Do  you  recollect  the  exact 
conversation  do  you  think  ? 

A.  That  has  been  my  impression  all  the  time. 

Q.  1  understand  you  to  say,  further,  that  whiskey  has  a  remarkable  effect 
upon  your  mind,  in  blurring  your  recollection  1 

A.  So  it  does  ;  it  always  did. 

Q.  Is  it  not  your  experience  that,  sometimes,  when  you  have  been  drinking 
at  night  and  playing  cards,  you  forget  all  about  the  game  and  how  things  stood? 

A.  I  have  no  doubt  I  may  have  done,  if  there  was  nothing  specially  to 
attract  my  attention.     There   are  many  instances  in   which,  unless  there  was 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  297 

something  positive  to  attract  my  attention,  I  would  never  remember  what  oc- 
curred. 

Q.  How  many  days  before  that  had  you  been  drunk  every  day  1     Had  you 
not  kept  it  up  for  some  time  before  1 

A.  Not  immediately  before ;   I  was  trying  to  break  myself  from  it. 

Q.  But  you  could  not  resist  breaking  over  on  this  occasion  ? 

A.  I  do  not  believe  there  was  anybody  else  who  could  resist  and  keep  that 
place. 

Q.  Did  you  drink  anything  on  Thursday  1 

A.  I  drank  something  every  day  as   to  that  matter.     I  took  a  toddy  or  two 
every  day. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  who  was  at  Surrattsville  Thursday  night  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  that  there  was  a  company  of  gentlemen  in  your  bar- 
room that  night,  drinking  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  at  all.     I  saAV  so  many  persons  coming  there  so  many 
different  days  that  I  could  not  remember  that  particular  day. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  where  you  were  on  Thursday  night  ? 

A.  I  could  not,  unless  I  was  at  home. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  went  to  bed  pretty  drunk  on  Thursday 
night  or  not  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  tell ;  I  do  not  recollect  that. 

Q.  I  understood  you  also  to  say  that  the  moon  was  shining  at  12  o'clock  that 
night  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  the  heavens  was  it  1 

A.  I  had  not  been  there  long  enough  to  get  the  location,  which  was  east  and 
which  west. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  the  points  of  the  compass  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q,.  Tell  us  whereabouts,  relative  to  the  location  of  the  house,  the  moon  was 
shining  ? 

A.  As  well  as  I  remember,  the  moon  was  shining,  but  I  paid  very  little 
attention  to  it  at  all. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  the  moon  was  not  very  high  above  the  horizon  ? 

A.  That  was   my  impression,  from   the  fact   that   it  was   not   shining  very 
bright. 

Q.  Was  it  a  clear  night  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  seeing  any  clouds ;  I  never  took  any  particular  notice 
of  it  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  moon  was  shining  when  you  went  to  bed,  or 
not,  in  the  early  part  of  the  night  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  was. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  When  you  came  into  court  this  morning  and  took  an  oath  upon  the  book, 
what  was  your  condition  as  to  being  sober  or  otherwise  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.  Tlie  witness  Avas  before  the  jury,  and 
they  could  judge  as  to  his  condition.  Objection  sustained  by  the  court,  the 
question  not  being  in  reply  to  anything  brought  out  in  cross-examination.) 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  in  regard  to  your  habit  of  drunkenness  ;  about  that 
time,  were  you  drunk  every  day  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  I  was  drunk  every  day.     I  Avas  drinking  every  day. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick,  as  relating  to  a  matter  brought  out  by 
the  examination  in  chief  and  only  replied  to  in  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  that  what  the  witness  had  stated  on  that  subject  was 
not  in  response  to  any  question  in  the  examination  in  chief. 
20 


298  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  court.) 

Q.  You  saj  you  were  drinking  every  day  about  this  time  ? 

A.  I  was,  and  I  found  the  habit  was  getting  too  strong  for  me  ? 

Q.  Tou  have  thought  on  the  subject  on  which  you  have  testified? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick,  as  incompetent. 

Objection  sustained) 

Q.  At  the  time  you  came  home  that  day,  you  say  Mrs.  Surratt  was  there? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick,  as  rehatiug  to  a  matter  already  brought 
out  in  the  examination  in  chief. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  his  object  was  to  find  out  where  Mrs.  Oflfutt  was,  in 
reference  to  whom  no  questions  had  been  asked  in  the  examination  in  chief.  He 
had  never  heard  about  Mrs.  Ofiut  until  her  name  was  mentioned  in  the  cross- 
examination. 

The  court  decided  that  the  examination  must  be  in  reply  to  such  distinct 
matters  as  had  been  brought  out  on  cross-examination.) 

Q.  Give  us  the  exact  position  of  Mrs.  Surratt  when  you  came  home. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  ilerrick,  and  objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Where  was  Mrs.  Offutt  when  you  came  home? 

A.  Mrs.  OfFutt  was  in  the  house  when  I  first  drove  up,  I  suppose.  She  came 
to  the  door  to  come  out  of  the  house. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Oifutt  speak  to  you? 

A.  0,  yes  ;  she  always  did. 

Q.  "What  did  she  say  to  you  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  she  spoke  to  me  on  that  occasion.  I  do  not  remembei 
whether  she  did  or  not. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  came  home,  who  drove  you  Lome  ? 

A.  1  think  I  drove  myself. 

Q.  You  were  nut  so  drunk  you  could  not  drive? 

A.  I  could  drive  if  I  could  sit  up  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  get  out  yourself? 

A.  0,  yes. 

Q.  Did  anybody  help  you  out? 

A.  Ko  one  helped  me  out. 

Q,  When  you  went  to  speak  to  Mrs.  Surratt,  did  you  stagger? 

A.  That  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  fall  down? 

A.  Really,  I  cannot  remember  such  a  thing. 

Q.  Is  it  your  best  recollection  that  you  did  fall  down  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick,  as  not  in  reply  to  cross-examination. 

Objection  sustained.) 

By  the  Court: 

Q.  You  stated  that  whiskey  or  liquor  would  have  a  very  peculiar  effect  upon 
you;  that  when  you  had  been  drinking  you  did  not  remember  things  distinctly; 
do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  do  not  remember,  when  you  are  drunk,  something 
that  happened  before  you  got  drunk,  'or  that  you  cannot  recollect  what  took 
place  while  you  were  drunk  after  you  get  sober  ? 

A.  I  will  explain:  In  case  of  going  before  a  court  to  give  testimony,  or  any- 
thing of  that  kind,  I  cannot  in  justice  to  myself  taste  any  liquor,  without  making 
me  possibly  say  something,  or  use  some  expression,  that  I  would  not  wish  to, 
or  oftentimes  making  me  forget  things  I  do  not  wish  to  forget. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  And  therefore  when  you  go  before  a  court  you  do  not  taste  liquor  ? 
A.  "When  I  go  before  a  court  I  do  not  taste  liquor. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURKATT.  299 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  you  cau  recollect  distinctly  thiugs  that  pass  when  you 
are  drunk  ? 

A.  There  are  a  great  many  things  1  could  not  pretend  to  recollect  when  I  was 
drunk  ;  for  instance,  you  could  tell  me  anything  at  all  when  I  was  drunk,  and  I 
would  not  think  of  it  five  minutes  afterwards,  and  would  not  remember  it  after- 
wards at  all,  unless  something  occurred  at  that  particular  time  to  draw  my  atten- 
tion to  it. 

Q.  You  have  just  stated  that  you  could  not  tell  whether  you  staggered  or 
whether  you  fell  down,  Avhile  you  were  going  to  meet  Mrs.  Surratt,  after  you 
came  home  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  in  regard  to  meeting  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  next  day,  what  time  of  the 
day  was  it? 

A.  I  think,  as  well  as  I  remember,  it  was  about  11  o'clock  in  the  day  ? 

Q.  How  far  had  your  carriages  passed  each  other? 

A.  I  do  not  think  more  than  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet. 

Q.  You  both  pulled  up  as  soon  as  you  could  ? 

A.  She  pulled  up  as  soon  as  she  recognized  me,  and  I  did  the  same. 

Q.  Was  it  more  than  the  length  of  the  horse  and  buggy? 

A.  It  may  have  been  twice  the  length  of  the  horse  and  buggy ;  I  do  not  re- 
member distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  which  way  you  passed? 

A.  We  passed  to  the  right  of  each  other. 

Q.  Mrs.  Offutt  and  her  child  were  in  the  carriage  with  you;  what  sort  of  a 
carriage  were  you  in  ? 

A.  In  a  two-horse  caiTiage. 

Q.  With  a  top  to  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  driving  ? 

A.  I  was  driving  myself. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Surratt  in  a  top  buggy,  with  the  top  down  ? 

A.  She  was  in  a  top  buggy  with  the  top  up ;  it  had  been  raining. 

Q.  You  think  the  top  was  up  ? 

A.  I  am  satisfied  of  that. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  there  was  anything  different  from  usual  in  the 
tone  of  her  voice  on  that  occasion ;  whether  there  was  any  secrecy  in  the  manner 
in  which  she  spoke  to  you, 

A.  It  did  not  seem  so  to  me ;  in  fact,  the  only  thing  that  appeared  to  me  to 
be  out  of  the  way,  in  connection  Avith  our  conversation,  was  the  manner  in 
which  she  put  the  first  question.  As  regards  the  tone  of  her  voice,  it  did  not 
seem  to  me  other  than  ordinary.  It  may  have  been  a  little  lower  than  the 
ordinary  tone.     There  was  nothing  like  a  whisper. 

Q.  Loud  enough  for  Mr.  Weichman  to  hear  the  conversation  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  that  Mr.  Weichman  heard  her.  I  told  him,  when  in  prison, 
that  he  might  have  been  a  deaf  man  for  what  1  knew. 

Q.  He  was  sitting  in  the  buggy,  and  you  were  on  the  outside,  standing  in 
front,  talking  in  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  was  not  more  than  three  feet  from  Mrs.  Surratt  at  any  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  having  testified  anything  else  that  passed  between  you 
and  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q.  She  said  nothing  about  Mr.  Nothe  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  think  not. 

Q.  She  said  nothing  about  Captain  Gwynn  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  she  did,  or  that  she  made  any  remark  about  any  business 
except  that  and  John  being  away. 


300  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  her  saying  anything  about  being  near-sigbted,  so  tbat 
she  did  not  see  you  when  you  were  passing? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  wlien  you  got  into  the  carriage  that  you  said  any- 
thing about  what  had  passed  between  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A,  I  do  not. 

Q.  When  she  was  speaking  to  you  in  the  yard  on  that  Friday  was  it  in  an 
ordinary  tone  of  voice  1 

A.  It  appeared  to  me  so ;  it  did  not  appear  anything  unusual  at  all. 

Q  You  say  she  gave  you  that  package  out  in  the  yard.  Where  did  you  take 
it  first? 

A.  I  took  it  first  and  laid  it  on  the  sofa  in  the  back  room. 

Q.  Was  not  that  package  lying  on  the  sofa  in  the  back  room,  and  did  Mrs. 
Oflfut  give  it  to  youl 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  she  did. 

Q.  When  you  came  in  was  it  not  wrapped  up  and  lying  on  the  sofa  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  it  was. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  that  Mrs.  Ofi'utt  gave  it  to  you  at  all? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  In  your  examination  in  chief  I  understand  you  to  say  tbat  Herold  went 
down  below  your  house;  that  be  started  alone,  and  the  next  morning  came  back 
with  these  carbines? 

A.  The  night  before  Herold  started  alone ;  the  next  niorning  I  saw  his  horse 
at  my  front  gate. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Herold  bring  them  ? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  knew  nothing  about  the  carbines  or  anything  of  the  kind 
until  my  attention  was  called  to  them  in  the  front  room. 

Q.  Herold,  if  I  understand  you,  went  down  the  night  before  and  the  next 
morning  came  back,  and  when  you  came  in  you  found  the  carbines  in  the  room, 
who  brought  them  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  I  was  invited  into  the  room  by  John  Surratt. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  who  brought  them  in  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Herold  went  that  night  1 

A.  He  told  us  in  the  bar-room  thut  he  was  obliged  to  go  to  T  B  that  night. 
It  was  getting  very  late  when  he  left.  I  told  him  that  I  had  one  spare  bed 
which  he  might  occupy  if  he  wished. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  come  back  with  the  carbines  on  his  return  from  T  B  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  with  any  shot-guns  ? 

A.  xSo,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  leave  your  house  to  go  to  T  B? 

A.  I  suppose  near  11  o'clock  that  night. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  get  back  the  next  day  1 

A.  The  next  morning  he  came  back  about  8  or  9  o'clock. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  came  from  when  he  came  to  your  house  the  day 
before  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  direction  he  came  from  ? 

A.  It  was  dark  when  he  got  there.  I  do  not  know  from  what  direction  he 
came. 

Q.  How  far  is  T  B  from  your  house  ? 

A.  It  is  called  five  miles. 

Q.  How  far  from  Port  Tobacco? 

A.  I  do  not  know  exactly;  I  am  not  acquainted  with  that  road. 

Q.  I  want,  if  possible,  that  you  should  fix  with  some  degree  of  certainty  the 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  301 

date  when  Hcrold  was  at  your  lioixse  that  night  and  the  next  morning  brouglit 
back  the  guns;  fix  that  as  nearly  a.s  you  can. 

A.  If  I  had  my  bar-room  book  I  could  tell  exactly. 

Q.  Where  is  it  ? 

A.  The  military  authorities  took  it ;  I  have  never  seen  it  since. 

Mr.  Braolkv  (to  district  attorney.)  Have  you  it  in  your  possession? 

The  Assistant  District  Attorney.  We  know  nothing  about  it. 

Witness.  I  called  on  Judge  Holt  afterward  ;  he  said  he  knew  nothing  about 
it;  there  were  some  bills  on  it  I  Avanted  to  make  out,  but  I  never  got  hold  of  it. 

Q.  Without  that  bar  book  cannot  you  fix  by  other  circumstances  within  a 
week  of  the  time? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Collenbach  made  out  some  bills  from  that  book. 

Q.  Who  is  Mr.  Collenbach  ? 

A.  A  cai-penter,  who  lived  in  that  neighborhood;  he  is  in  the  city  now. 
Those  bills  are  now  down  in  that  county  for  collection.  If  I  could  get  hold  of 
one  of  those  I  could  ascertain  with  certainty. 

Mr.  Bradley  asked  consent  to  recall  the  witness  to  ascertain  the  date  in 
question  if  he  should  obtain  one  of  the  bills  referred  to. 

The  District  Attorney  assented. 

Q.  Was  it  as  much  as  two  months  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  was ;  I  am  satisfied  it  was  not  more  than  six  weeks. 

Q.  You  say  you  saw  John  Surratt  again  on  the  25th  of  March  ? 

A.  That,  I  think,  was  the  last  time  1  saw  him. 

Q.  W^as  anybody  in  company  with  him  on  the  25tli  of  March,  the  last  time 
you  saw  him  ? 

A.  lie  came  with  his  mother  and  another  lady  in  the  carriage. 

Q.  Did  he  stop  at  your  house  and  return  or  go  on  ? 

A.  I  think  they  stopped  long  enough  to  get  their  dinner. 

Q.  Did  they  separate  there  or  not  ? 

A.  His  mother  remained  there,  and  I  think  some  gentleman  came  with  a 
buggy  and  took  her  back  to  Washington,  or  took  her  away,  as  well  as  I  remem- 
ber. 

Q.  Which  way  did  John  and  the  other  lady  go  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  which  way  they  went  from  the  house ;  they  left  there. 

Q.  How  Avere  they  riding? 

A.  They  were  riding,  as  well  as  I  remember,  in  a  carriage  with  two  horses. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  color  of  the  horses  ? 

A.  It  strikes  me  they  were  gray  horses. 

Q.  One  gray  and  the  other  not  ? 

A.  It  strikes  me  both  were  gray. 

The  District  Attorney  objected  to  further  examination,  as  the  cross- 
examination  had  once  been  finished. 

The  Court  said  he  so  understood  it,  and  that  counsel  for  the  prosecution  had 
proceeded  with  their  examination  in  reply. 

Mr  Bradley  said  he  only  desired  to  ascertain,  when  he  stopped  at  the  house 
of  the  witness  for  the  last  time  on  the  2oth  of  March,  who  was  with  him. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Weichman  hear  this  conversation  to  which  you  have  testified 
between  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt? 

A.  That  I  am  unable  to  say.  As  I  said  befoi-e,  Mr.  Weichman  was  an  entire 
stranger  to  me.     As  far  as  I  know  he  may  have  heard  it. 

Q.  She  was  sitting  in  a  buggy  with  him  ? 

A.  He  was  sittingalong  side  of  her. 

Q.  Did  he  take  any  part  in  the  conversation  ? 

A.  Not  at  all;  she  was  sitting  with  her  head  a  little  forward,  towards  me. 


302  TRIAL    OP^    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

Q.  Yoii  did  not  observe  that  lie  took  any  part  ? 

A.  I  noticed  that  his  eye  was  cast  towards  mine  when  I  looked  up  after  she 
had  made  use  of  the  expi-ession.     When  I  looked  at  him  he  turned  his  head. 
Q.  Your  recollection  of  these  facts  is  very  distinct  ? 
A.  I  am  satisfied  of  the  facts  I  state. 

EvERTOiv  J.  CoNGKR  was  swom  as  a  witness  for  the  prosecution,  and  the 
court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Tuesday,  June  25,  1S67. 
The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

JoH.x  W.  Garrett  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  State  your  residence. 

A.  Caroline  county,  Virginia. 

Q.  State  where  you  lived  in  April,  1865. 

A,  I  lived  at  the  same  place. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  when  and  where  you  first  saw  him. 

A.  I  saw  him  at  my  father's  house  ;  I  do  not  remember  the  date ;  two  days, 
I  think,  before  he  was  killed  there. 

Q.   Was  he  alone,  or  was  he  with  some  one  ? 

A.  He  was  with  some  one. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ;  do  you  know  ? 

Witness.  Do  you  wish  to  know  who  he  was  brought  there  by  1 

Mr.  Wilson.  Yes. 

A.  He  was  brought  there  by  two  men  by  the  name  of  Jett  and  Ruggles. 

Q.  State  briefly  and  distinctly  when  he  came  there,  where  he  went,  and  what 
he  did. 

A.   I  saw  him  when  he  rode  up  to  the  house. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  day  of  the  month  ? 

A.  I  do  not ;  I  think  it  was  on  Wednesday. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  1 

A.  In  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Was  he  on  horseback  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Describe  the  horse  he  rode, 

A.  I  cannot ;  I  do  not  remember  the  horse ;  I  was  lying  down  at  the  time 
he  came ;  I  heard  the  dogs  barking ;  I  rose  up,  looked  out,  and  saw  him  dis- 
mounting from  the  horse ;  I  do  not  remember  what  kind  of  a  horse  it  was. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him  1 

A.  Ruggles  and  Jett. 

Q.  Any  one  else  ? 

A.  No  one  else. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Herold  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  1 

A.  He  came  the  next  day. 

Q.   State  what  Booth  did  after  he  came  there  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  anything  in  particular  that  he  did.  He  remained  there  the 
first  night;  he  was  not  there  the  second  night. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  his  condition  physically,  his  limbs,  &c.  ? 

A.  He  was  very  lame. 

Q.  What  was  the  matter ;  do  you  know  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  IT.  SURRATT.  303 

A.  He  said  his  leg  was  broken.     I  did  not  examine  it. 

Q.  He  remained  at  your  bouse  tbat  uiglit ;  wbat  did  be  do  tbe  next  day  ? 

A.  He  remained  about  the  house ;  I  do  not  tbiuk  be  went  away  at  all. 

Q.  How  long  did  be  remain  in  tbe  bouse  ? 

A.  I  don't  know ;   I  was  not  at  home  during  tbe  day. 

Q.  You  came  borne  at  night  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  at  dinner. 

Q.  "Was  be  there  then  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  there  1 

A.  He  remained  until  after  dinner ;  then  some  cavalry  came  along,  and  he 
left  tbe  bouse  for  a  short  while,  and  1  tbiuk  returned  again. 

Q.  Where  did  be  go  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  where ;  he  could  not  have  gone  far,  because  he  came  back 
very  shortly. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  leave  the  bouse  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  return  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Which  way  did  he  return  ? 

A.  From  tbe  direction  of  the  woods. 

Q.  Was  Ilerold  there  at  tbe  time  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  When  did  he  come  ? 

A.  He  came  in  tbe  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  be  go  out  with  Booth  1 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  came  back  with  him  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  whether  be  did  or  not. 

Q.  How  long  did  Booth  remain  the  second  time  he  came  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  entered  the  bouse  the  second  time  or  not ;  yes, 
lie  did,  and  took  supper  there. 

Q.  What  did  be  do  after  supper? 

A.  After  supper  he  went  to  the  barn  and  staid  there  until  the  cavalry  came. 

Q.  At  wbat  time  was  tbat  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  at  what  time  he  went ;  the  usual  bod-time  I  suppose. 

Q.  Who  went  with  him  ? 

A.  Herold. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  what  articles  Booth  brought,  and  wbat  Herold  had 
with  him. 

A.  Tbat  I  do  not  know.     I  remember  Booth  had  a  pistol  or  pair  ot  pistols,  a 
bowie-knife  and  a  field-glass. 

Q.  What  did  Herold  have  ? 

A.  I  tbiuk  he  bad  a  carbine ;  I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q,.  How  did  Herold  come ;  on  horseback  or  on  foot  ? 

A.  He  came  on  foot. 

Q.  Examine  that  glass,  (field-glass  exhibited,)  and  see  if  you  ever  saw  it  before. 

A.  I  cannot  testify  that  I  ever  saw  this  glass ;  I  have  seen  one  similar  to  it. 

Q.  Whore? 

A.  At  my  father's  house. 

Q.  State  whether  the  one  you  saw  Booth  have  was  similar  to  this. 

A.  Similar  to  this  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  it  have  a  case? 

A.  Yes,  sii". 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  it  last  ? 

A.  I  saw  it  at  my  father's  house,  in  Booth's  possession. 


304  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  he  take  it  witli  him  to  the  barn  ? 

A.  I  don't  knoAv  ;  I  suppose  not. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  have  it  in  the  house  ? 

A.  I  don't  know. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  there  after  Booth  was  captured  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Describe  the  carbine  Herokl  had. 

A.  I  could  not ;  I  did  not  examine  it, 

Q.  Did  they  have  any  other  articles  ? 

A.  I  think  they  had  -a  large  shawl.  I  do  not  know  which  had  it  ;  it  was  in 
their  possession. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  horse  Booth  rode  1 

A.  The  men  carried  it  back. 

Q.  Describe  it. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  ;  I  think  it  was  a  sorrel. 

Q.  Describe  the  place  where  Booth  was  captured ;  how  near  the  house. 

A.  I  suppose  150  or  200  yards.  It  was  a  large  tobacco  house.  It  was  as 
far  from  the  house,  perhaps,  as  from  here  across  the  street. 

Q.  Describe  the  manner  in  which  that  house  was  built. 

A.  It  was  a  laige  house,  I  think  about  sixty  feet  square,  built  with  sheds  on 
each  end.  It  was  intended  for  tobacco  ;  we  used  to  have  a  good  deal  of  tobacco 
before  the  war. 

Q.  Was  it  close? 

A.  Pretty  close.  There  were  spaces  left  between  the  boards  to  air  the 
tobacco. 

Q.  How  wide  were  the  spaces  ? 

A.  I  suppose  about  four  inches  apart. 

Q.   State  whether  the  barn  was  full  or  empty  ;  what  was  in  it  ? 

A.  There  M'^ere  a  good  many  farming  implements,  some  hay,  and  fodder. 

Q.  Examine  these  carbines,  (two  carbines  exhibited,)  and  state  whether  Herold 
had  a  weapon  like  that. 

A.  I  did  not  examine  the  carbine  at  all.  I  only  know  it  had  a  string  on, 
(selecting  one;)  I  suppose  this  must  have  been  the  one  he  had. 

Q.  It  had  a  string  on  like  that  ? 

A.  I  think  it  had  a  string  on,  but  do  not  know.  I  never  examined  the  car- 
bine at  all. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  Avhat  occurred  when  the  officers  came  to  the  house. 

A.  The  first  intimation  I  had  of  them  was  hearing  them  at  the  house.  I 
went  directly  to  the  house.  Three  of  them  were  standing  around  my  father.  As 
soon  as  I  walked  up,  one  of  the  officers.  Colonel  Conger,  I  think  they  repre- 
sented him  to  be,  turned  to  me  and  asked  where  I  came  from.  I  told  him  who 
I  was,  and  asked  him  who  he  was  in  pursuit  of.  I  told  him  there  were  two 
men  at  the  house,  and  that  they  were  now  in  the  barn  ;  that  if  he  would  go  with 
me  I  would  show  him  where  it  was.  The  three  officers  left  my  father  directly 
and  went  with  me  to  the  barn.  When  we  reached  the  barn  one  of  tliem,  I  think 
Colonel  Conger,  said  to  me,  "  There  are  three  rooms  here,  the  tobacco-house  and 
two  corn-houses  ;  if  you  do  not  tell  me  the  exact  house  he  is  in.  your  life  will  pay 
the  forfeit."  I  told  him  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  he  was  in  the  tobacco- 
house  ;  that  he  Avent  there  the  night  before,  and  I  supposed  he  was  there  at 
that  time.  Then,  after  stationing  his  guard  round  the  house,  I  think  Baker 
came  to  me  and  says,  "  I  want  you  to  go  into  that  barn  and  demand  the  surren- 
der of  the  arms  that  man  has  and  bring  them  out  to  me.  Unless  you  do  it,  I 
will  burn  your  property."  I  went  to  the  door  and  Baker  unlocked  it.  I  went 
into  the  barn ;  went  up  where  Booth  was  lying.  I  think  he  was  lying  when  I 
went  in.  As  soon  as  I  got  up  to  where  he  was,  he  raised  up.  I  told  him  what  I 
was  sent  in  there  for.     He  asked  me  who  the  men  were.     I  told  him  I  did  not 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  305 

know  ;  I  only  knew  tliey  were  armed  soldiers.  He  said,  "  If  you  don't  get  out  of 
here  I  will  shoot  you;  you  have  betrayed  me.  Get  out  of  the  baru  at  once." 
He  raised  to  get  his  pistol  and  I  went  out  at  once. 

Q.  Where  was  the  carbine  l 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  suppose  it  was  in  the  barn.  It  was  very  dark  in  there  ; 
I  could  not  see  anything. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  that  ? 

A.  I  suppose  two  houi  s  to  day ;  I  do  not  know;  it  was  a  very  dark  night.  I 
went  out  and  told  one  of  the  officers,  Baker  I  believe,  Avhat  he  had  said,  and  that 
if  he  thought  proper  to  burn  the  barn  he  could  do  so,  but  I  would  not  risk  my 
life  farther;  that  I  saw  no  necessity  for  burning  the  barn,  if  he  would  wait  until 
daylight  he  could  get  him  without  destroying  the  property.  I  was  then  ordered 
by  him  to  place  some  brush  against  the  barn  to  fire  it.  Previous  to  this  I  had 
told  him  what  the  man  inside  said:  "Young  man,  I  advise  you  for  your  own 
good  ;  if  you  do  not  leave  at  once  I  will  shoot  you."  I  tlrink  then  there  Avas  a 
conversation  between  one  of  the  officers  outside  and  Booth  inside ;  the  exact 
words  I  do  not  remember.  The  officer  outside  demanded  of  him  to  come  out. 
He  said,  "Who  are  you?  Who  am  I  to  surrender  to  ?  Probably  I  might  be 
taken  by  my  friends."  The  officer,  whoever  he  was — I  think  he  was  Baker — 
said,  "  We  did  not  come  here  to  hold  any  parley  with  you  ;  we  came  to  capture 
you ;  and  unless  you  are   out  of  the  barn  in  five  minutes,  we  will  fire  it." 

Q.  Did  he  come  out  1 

A.  Not  until  after  the  barn  was  fired. 

Q.  The  barn  was  then  fired.     What  then  happened  ? 

A.  When  the  barn  was  fired  the  door  was  unlocked.  Baker  and  mystdf  were 
the  first  to  enter  the  barn.  He  went  directly  to  Booth,  who  was  then  falling  or 
had  fallen.     I  ran  to  extinguish  the  flames. 

Q.  Where  Avas  he,  or  had  he  been  standing,  before  he  fell  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  he  was  about  in  the  centre  of  the  barn  then. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  standing  after  the  baru  had  been  fired  ? 

A.  I  did  not ;  I  did  not  look. 

Q.  Did  you  see  who  fired  the  shot  that  caused  him  to  fall  ? 

A.  1  did  not ;  he  had  fallen  or  was  falling  when  I  entered  the  baru.  I  was 
the  second  to  enter. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Booth  before  be  came  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Br.\dlry  stated  that  he  had  no  cross-examination,  but  desired  to  have 
his  exception  to  this  testimony  noted. 

EvERTON  J.  Conger,  farmer — resident  of  Richland  county,  Ohio — called 
and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  was  your  occupation  in  1865,  in  the  month  of  April  ? 

A.  Soldier. 

Q.  Of  what  regiment  and  what  office  did  you  hold  ? 

A.  Lieutenant  coloncd  first  District  Columbia  cavalry. 

Q.  Will  you  give  to  this  jury  an  account  of  the  capture  of  Booth  ;  describe 
your  coming  to  Garrett's  house,  what  time  in  the  day  or  night  it  was,  and  who 
was  with  you  ? 

A.  We  got  to  Garrett's  house  about  12  or  1  o'clock  of  the  night  of  the  .25th 
and  26th  of  April;  Byron  Baker,  First  Lieutenant  Dougherty,  and  twenty-five  or 
twenty-six  cavalrymen,  belonging,  I  believe,  to  the  sixteenth  New  York  cavalry 
were  with  us  ;  also  a  man  by  the  name  of  Rollins,  who  lived  at  Port  Conway, 
and  a  young  man  by  the  name  of  Jett,  who  when  I  found  him  was  at  Bowling 
Green. 

Q.  What  was  he  with  you  for  ? 


306  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    IT.    SURRATT. 

A.  To  sLow  us  where  Garrett  lived. 

Q.  Who  else  was  with  you  ? 

A.  I  think  that  was  all. 

Q.  "Was  there  not  a  sergeant  with  j'ou  ? 

A.  When  I  say  soldiers  I  mean  sergeants,  corporals,  and  men  sufficient  to 
make  up  the  number. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  man  by  the  name  of  Corbett  ? 

A.  Boston  Corbett ;  yes,  sir.  ^ 

Q.  What  •was  his  office  ? 

A.  He  Avas  a  sergeant,  I  believe. 

Q.  Who  commanded  those  soldiers  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  Jett  conducted  you  to  the  house  1 

A.  Wt  nt  to  the  house  and  put  soldiers  around  it,  and  about  the  barn.  Then 
went  inside  the  house  to  see  where  Booth  and  Herold  were. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  ? 

A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  told  you  ? 

A.  I  think  his  name  was  John  H.  Garrett ,  this  young  man  who  has  just  been 
sworn. 

Q.  Then  you  went  to  the  barn,  or  tobacco  house  ;  what  then  did  you.  do  ? 

A.  I  took  soldiers  from  the  house  and  stationed  them  around  this  place  and 
set  fire  to  it. 

Q.  That  was  not  the  first  thing  you  did  ;  describe  all  you  did  in  the  order  in 
which  it  was  done.  After  you  stationed  soldiers  around  it,  what  was  the  first 
thing  you  did  1     Did  you  look  in  and  make  any  demand  ]  and  if  so,  what  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  Baker,  who  was  with  me,  did  the  talkin^-, 

Q.  Tell  us  what  was  done  by  you  and  your  men.  1  want  to  get  before  the 
jury  the  occurrences  in  their  order,  exactly  as  they  occurred. 

A.  In  coming  to  the  house  the  men  were  on  horseback ;  when  we  got  to  the 
barn,  in  order  to  make  it  more  secure,  they  were  dismounted,  a  few  at  a  time, 
and  the  horses  sent  away  to  the  rear.  The  men  were  stationed  around  the  barn, 
about  thirty  feet  from  it,  on  three  sides.  On  the  front  side  no  men  were  sta- 
tioned— the  side  the  door  was.  The  conversation  which  was  held  with  those 
in  the  barn  was  done  by  Baker.  It  was  in  the  first  place  commenced  by  him 
while  I  was  putting  the  men  on  guard  around  the  barn,  and  afterwards  con- 
ducted by  him.     I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  change  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  it  ? 

A.  I  heard  it  and  directed  it  principally. 

Q.  Relate  it. 

A.  He  said  to  these  men  in  the  barn  :  "  AVe  are  going  to  send  this  young 
man,  on  whose  place  you  are  found,  to  take  your  arms  and  ask  you  to  surrender." 
Garrett  went  into  the  barn  to  ask  them  to  come  out  in  order  to  save  the  barn 
from  being  burnt.     They  refused  to  do  it,  and  I  believe  told  him  to  go  out. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  what  he  said  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  them  threaten  to  shoot  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  hear  any  conversation  that  occurred  between  Garrett 
and  Booth. 

Q.  Tell  what  you  did  hear,  and  what  you  then  did. 

A.  I  heard  Baker  say  to  him,  "  If  you  don't  come  out  we  will  set  the  barn 
on  fire  and  burn  you  out."     He  asked  for  a  few  minutes  to  consider  the  matter. 

Q.  Did  you  give  him  a  few  minutes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  look  in  yourself  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  dark. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  307 

Q.  "What  did  you  do  after  waiting  a  few  minutes  ? 

A.  I  told  Garrett  to  pile  come  brush  against  the  corner  of  the  barn,  to  make 
an  impression  that  it  was  to  be  set  on  fire. 

Q.  Did  he  pile  up  the  brush  ? 

A.  He  did  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  Booth  say  to  that  ? 

A.  Garrett  told  me  that  Booth  came  to  the  corner  of  the  barn  and  told  him 
if  he  valued  his  life  to  go  away  from  there;  that  if  he  did  not  he  would  shoot 
him,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Did  he  go  away  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  told  him  he  need  not  put  any  more  stuff  there. 

Q.  That  did  not  have  the  effect  to  bring  him  out? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  next  in  order  did  you  do  ? 

A.  Booth  said  he  was  a  lame  man,  a  cripple  ;  that  if  we  would  take  fifty 
men  and  draw  them  back  one  hundred  yards,  he  would  come  out  and  fight  us  all. 
He  wanted  that  we  should  give  him  fair  play.  Baker  said  we  did  not  come  there 
to  have  a  fight ;  we  simply  came  there  to  make  them  prisoners,  and  as  such  we 
expected  to  take  them,  dead  or  alive.  Booth  said,  "  There  is  one  man  in  here 
who  wants  to  surrender  pretty  bad."  Baker  told  him  to  hand  out  his  arms  and 
come  out.  He  came  to  the  door  and  I  think  said,  "Let  me  out."  Baker  told 
him  to  hand  out  his  arms.  He  said  he  did  not  have  any.  Baker  said,  "  You 
carried  the  carbine  ;  pass  it  to  us."  Booth  said,  "  This  man  has  no  arms  ;  this 
carbine  is  mine  ;  I  have  got  it."  I  said  to  Baker  not  to  make  any  more  talk 
about  the  arms,  but  to  get  one  man  out.  He  opened  the  door  ;  Herold  put  his 
bauds  out,  and  Baker  took  him  outside  the  door.  I  went  around  the  back  side 
of  the  barn,  made  a  little  rope  of  straw,  set  it  on  fire,  and  thrust  it  inside  ou 
top  of  of  a  little  pile  of  straw  lying  in  the  corner,  Avhich  set  it  on  fire. 

Q.  After  it  was  lighted,  could  you  see  Booth  very  plainly? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  when  it  first  lighted  up  Booth  stood  about  the  centre  of  the 
barn.  As  soon  as  the  light  attracted  his  attention  he  turned  round,  and  came 
up  to  the  corner  where  the  light  was. 

Q.   What  had  he  in  his  hand  ? 

A.  A  carbine. 

Q.  This  carbine  here  in  court  ? 

A.  I  think  that  is  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  is  or  not  ? 

A.  Yes, sii',  (after  examination;)  that  is  it. 

Q.  In  what  position  did  he  hold  it  ? 

A.  In  the  position  a  man  would  naturally  hold  it  if  he  was  looking  for  any- 
thing to  shoot. 

Q.  Describe  the  position  to  the  jury. 

A.  Something  like  this,  (exhibiting  position  to  jury.) 

Q.  What  did  he  do  ? 

A.  He  went  across  the  barn,  pretty  close  to  the  corner,  and  ran  his  eye  up  and 
down  the  cracks  of  the  barn  to  see  who  made  the  fire.  The  light  being  between 
him  and  the  outside  of  the  barn,  he  could  not  see  outside. 

Q.  You  could  see  him  plainly. 

A.  Very  plainly.  He  then  turned  his  eye  on  the  fire,  to  see,  as  I  thought, 
whether  he  could  put  it  out.  He  satisfied  himself  by  a  glance  at  it  that  he  could 
not.  It  had  burned  very  rapidly,  so  that  the  blaze  then  extended  two-thirds  to 
the  top  of  the  barn,  on  the  inside.  He  dropped  his  carbine  and  his  arms,  his 
countenance  changed,  and  he  turned  and  walked  away.  As  soon  as  he  left  the 
corner  of  the  barn  which  had  been  set  on  fire,  he  came  towards  the  front  door. 
The  front  door  was  nearer  to  the  position  where  I  stood  by  one  side  than  the 
other,  but  the  ground  about  the  other  was  smoother  ;  and,  in  order  to  go  quick 


308  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

in  the  dark,  I  went  around  that  way.  When  about  opposite  the  middle  of  the 
barn  I  heard  the  report  of  a  pistol  or  of  fire-arms — something  I  judged  to  be  a 
pistol.  I  supposed  he  had  shot  himself.  I  went  around  to  the  front  door,  and 
found  it  open.  Baker  had  gone  in,  and  when  I  went  to  him  stood  partly  bent 
down,  looking  at  Booth,  who  lay  on  the  floor,  to  all  appearance  dead.  I  stooped 
over,  looked  down  at  him,  and  said  he  had  shot  himself.  Baker  said,  "  No,  he 
did  not."  Said  I,  "Where  is  he  shot?"  He  said  he  thought  in  the  neck.  I 
reached  down  and  raised  up  his  head,  and  saw  a  wound  in  the  neck  bleeding. 
He  had  the  appearance  of  a  man  who  had  put  a  pistol  to  his  head  and  shot 
himself,  shooting  a  little  too  low;  and  I  said  again,  "  He  shot  himself"  Baker 
said,  "  No,  he  did  not."  He  spoke  very  positive  about  it.  I  thought  it  a  little 
strange,  rather,  as  if  he  doiibted  my  word  when  he  said  so.  However,  we  carried 
him  out  on  the  grass.  When  he  got  out  on  the  grass  he  began  to  show  signs 
of  coming  to  life.  We  had  water  put  in  his  face  and  mouth.  He  made  an 
effort  to  speak,  but  was  only  partially  intelligible.  I  put  my  head  down  to  his 
mouth,  and  understood  him  to  say,  "  Tell  my  mother  I  died  for  my  country." 
I  repeated  it  over  again,  and  asked  him  if  that  is  what  he  said.  He  replied,  or 
rather  indicated,  "  Yes."  From  there  he  was  carried  to  the  front  porch  of  Gar- 
rett's house,  and  laid  there  on  a  straw  tick  or  bed,  I  think.  I  think  he  said, 
while  he  was  there,  tell  his  mother  he  did  what  he  thought  was  for  the  best. 
He  wanted  to  be  turned  over  on  his  face  once,  and  had  a  sensation,  as  I  sup- 
posed, of  choking.  He  appeared  to  gasp,  and  want  to  get  something  out  of  his 
throat.  He  saw  Jett  standing  a  little  way  off,  on  the  ground,  and  said  to  me, 
"Did  that  man  betray  me?"     I  said,  "We  have  taken  him  prisoner." 

Q.  What  is  Jetl's  first  name  ? 

A.  Willie.  I  think  he  was  shot  very  nearly  at  three  o'clock,  and  died  a 
quarter  past  seven.  He  was  only  rational  about  forty  minutes,  or  three-quarters 
of  an  hour,  or  such  a  matter,  though  he  lived  some  time  afterwards. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  articles  you  took  from  him  ? 

A.  This  is  the  carbine  he  had.  He  had  two  pistols  ;  I  think  they  were 
Wheeler  &  Wilson's  ;  two  revolvers  ;  my  impression  is  they  were  seven-shoot- 
ing pistols,  of  some  kind,  of  about  six-inch  barrel.  He  had  a  large  bowie- 
knife,  or  hunting-knife,  and  sheath. 

Q.  Do  you  kn(ny  whose  make  that  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  the  knife  has  a  name  on  it,  but  I  do  not  know  what  it  is.  He 
had  a  diary,  some  bills  of  exchange  on  some  bank  in  Canada,  and  a  compass. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  compass  ? 

A.  A  little  box  compass,  like  a  miniature  case,  covered  with  leather,  shutting 
with  a  hinge. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  diary  ? 

A.  An  ordinary  pocket-diary,  six  inches  long,  perhaps,  and  two  or  three  inches 
wide,  with  a  memorandum  inside  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  know  for  what  year  the  diary  was  ? 

A.  1864. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  whether  there  were  any  leaves  cut  out  or  whether  they 
were  all  in  1 

A.  There  were  some  out. 

Q.  Describe,  if  you  can,  how  they  were  cut  out. 

A.  They  were  cut  out  with  a  knife,  and  cut  at  different  times,  I  should  say. 

Q.  Were  they  cut  straight  or  crooked  ? 

A.  They  were  cut  very  nearly  straight  down,  but  one  cut  was  across  another, 
so  that  the  stubs  didn't  match. 

Q.  In  cutting  were  they  cut  straight  by  a  rule  or  jaggedly  and  slantingly 
cut  1 

A.  Some  straight  and  some  slanting — not  by  a  rule,  but  as  straight  as  a  man 
would  ordinarily  cut  with  a  knife. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    If.    SURRATT.  309 

Q.  Cut  at  different  times  1 

A,  There  were  only  three  or  four  stubs,  perhaps,  left,  that  had  been  cut  at 
the  same  time.     They  may  have  been  cut  all  at  onc((,  but  by  different  cuts. 
Q.  State  whether  there  was  in  this  diary  of  1864  any  writing  at  the  time  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  diary  lately  ? 
A.  I  have. 

Q.  Can  you  state  when  you  last  saw  it,  or  about  when  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  exactly  ;  it  was  when  I  was  before  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
about  five  or  six  weeks  ago. 

Q.  State  whether  when  you  saw  the  diary  it  was  in  the  same  condition  it  was 
when  Booth  had  it. 
A.  It  was. 

Q.  Would  you  know  the  diary  if  you  were  to  see  it  ? 
A.  I  should. 
Q.  Describe  the  carbine. 

A.  It  was  an  ordinary  Spencer  carbine — a  seven-shooter. 
Q.  What  other  articles  ? 

A.  He  had  some  pine  shavings,  some  daguerreotypes,  some  tobacco,  a  little 
Catholic  medal,  and  a  pin. 
Q.  What  sort  of  a  pin  ? 
A.  A  stone  set  in  jet  and  gold. 
Q.  Any  name  on  it  ? 

A.  Dan  Bryant  to  J.  W.  Booth.     It  was  a  small-sized  brilliant. 
Q.  Was  it  a  diamond  or  a  crystal  ? 
A.  I  should  say  it  was  a  crystal. 
Q.  Was  it  single  or  more  than  one  stone  ? 
A.  I  should  say  it  was  only  one  stone. 
Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  lone-star  badge  is  1 
A.  No,  sir ;  1  do  not. 

Q.  Would  you  know  the  pin  if  you  were  to  see  it  ? 
A.  I  would,  I  think ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  to  the  pin  while  in  your  possession  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  was  bent  in  the  shank.     I  sat  on  it. 
Q.  How  did  you  sit  on  it  1 
A.  Just  simply  sat  on  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  sit  straight  on  the  pin,  did  you  1  Please  describe  to  the  jury 
how  you  sat  upon  it. 

A.  It  was  loose  in  my  pocket,  or  with  some  other  articles  there.  It  was  a 
scarf  pin,  and  I  suppose  three  inches  long.  It  was  straight  when  I  got  it,  but 
Avhen  I  looked  at  it,  it  was  bent,  and  I  suppose  I  did  it  by  sitting  on  the  pack- 
age. 

Q.  Please  examine  the  field-glass  shown  you  and  see  if  it  is  the  same  field- 
glass  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  never  saw  it  \intil  I  went  to  the  War  Department  to  get 
it. 

Q.  You  did  not  take  the  field-glass  from  the  house  ? 
A.  No. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  did  ] 

A.  Byron  Baker,  as  he  is  called.     L.  B.  Baker  is  his  name. 
(The  pin  referred  to  was  exhibited  and  identified  by  witness. 
The  diary  was  also  exhibited  and  identified.) 

Q.  Just  examine  it  now  and  say  for  what  year  it  is,  and  whether  lca^e3  bare 
been  cut  from  it. 

A.  It  is  for  1SG4,  and  leaves  have  been  cut  out. 


310  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  State  whether  the  diary  is  in  the  same  condition  now  it  was  when  you 
first  saw  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  read  from  a  copy  oiP  entries  in  the  diary  ;  Mr.  Merrick  having 
the  original  and  comparing  as  he  read. 

The  entries  read  are  as  follows  : 

"  Te  amor 

April  13,  14,  Friday,  the  Ides. 

Until  to-day  nothing  was  ever  thought  of  sacrificing  to  our  country's  wrongs. 
For  six  months  we  had  worked  to  captui'e.  But  our  cause  being  almost 
lost,  something  decisive  and  great  must  be  done.  But  its  failure  was  owing 
to  others  who  did  not  strike  for  their  country  with  a  heart.  I  struck  boldly, 
and  not  as  the  papers  say.  I  walked  with  a  firm  step  through  a  thou- 
sand of  his  friends ;  was  stopped,  but  pushed  on.  A  colonel  was  at  his  side.  I 
shouted  Sic  semper  before  I  tired.  In  jumping  broke  my  leg.  I  passed  all  his 
pickets.  Rode  sixty  miles  that  night,  with  the  bone  of  my  leg  tearing  the  flesh 
at  every  jump. 

I  can  never  repent  it,  though  we  hated  to  kill.  Our  country  owed  all  our 
troubles  to  him,  and  God  simply  made  me  the  instrument  of  his  punishment. 

The  country  is  not 

April,  1865, 

what  it  was.  This  forced  union  is  not  what  I  have  loved.  I  care  not  what 
becomes  of  me.  I  have  no  desire  to  out-live  my  country.  This  night  (before 
the  deed)  I  wrote  a  long  article  and  left  it  for  one  of  the  editors  of  the  National 
Intelligencer,  in  which  I  fully  set  forth  our  reasons  for  our  proceedings.     He  or 

the  gov'r 

Friday,  21. 

After  being  hunted  like  a  dog  through  swamps,  woods,  and  last  night  being 
chased  by  gunboats  till  I  was  forced  to  return  wet,  cold,  and  starving,  with 
every  man's  hand  against  me,  I  am  here  in  despair.  And  why?  I'or  doing 
what  Brutus  was  honored  for — what  made  Tell  a  hero.  And  yet  I,  for  strik- 
ing down  a  greater  tyrant  than  they  ever  knew,  am  looked  upon  as  a  common 
cut-throat.  My  action  was  purer  than  either  of  theirs.  One  hoped  to  be  great. 
The  other  had  not  only  his  country's,  but  his  own  wrongs  to  avenge.  I  hoped 
for  no  gain.  I  knew  no  private  wrong.  I  struck  for  my  country  and  that  alone. 
A  conntry  that  groaned  beneatJi  this  tyranny,  and  prayed  for  this  end,  and  yet 
now  behold  the  cold  hand  they  extend  to  me.  God  cannot  pardon  me  if  I  have 
done  wrong.  Yet  I  cannot  see  my  wrong,  except  in  serving  a  degenerate  people. 
The  little,  the  very  little,  I  left  behind  to  clear  my  name,  the  government  Avill  not 
allow  to  be  printed.  So  ends  all.  For  my  country  I  have  given  up  all  that 
makes  life  sweet  and  holy,  brought  misery  upon  my  family,  and  am  sure  there 
is  no  pardon  in  the  Heaven  for  me,  since  man  condemns  me  so.  I  have  only 
heard  of  what  has  been  done,  (except  what  I  did  myself,)  and  it  tills  me  with 
horror.  God,  try  and  forgive  me,  and  bless  my  mother.  To-night  I  will  once 
more  try  the  river  with  the  intent  to  cross.  Though  I  have  a  greater  desire  and 
almost  a  mind  to  return  to  Washington,  and  in  a  measure  clear  my  name — which 
I  feel  I  can  do.  I  do  not  repeut  the  blow  I  struck.  I  may  before  my  God, 
but  not  to  man.  I  think  I  have  done  well.  Though  I  am  abandoned,  with  the 
curse  of  Cain  upon  me,  when,  if  the  world  knew  my  heart,  that  one  blow  would 
have  made  me  great,  though  I  did  desire  no  greatness. 

To-night  I  try  to  escape  these  blood-hounds  once  more.  Who,  who  can  read 
his  fate '{     God's  will  be  done. 

I  have  too  great  a  soul  to  die  like  a  criminal.  0,  may  He,  may  He  spare  me 
that,  and  let  me  die  bravely. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  311 

I  bless  the  entire  ■world.  Have  never  hated  or  wronged  any  one.  This  last 
was  not  a  wrong,  unless  God  deems  it  so,  and  it's  with  Him  to  damn  or  bless 
me.  And  for  this  brave  boy  with  me,  who  often  prays  (yes,  before  and  since) 
with  a  true  and  sincere  heart — was  it  crime  in  him  ?  If  so,  why  can  he  pray  tlie 
same? 

I  do  not  wish  to  shed  a  drop  of  blood,  but  "  I  must  fight  the  course."  'Tis  all 
that's  left  me. 

(A  sheet,  seeming  to  have  been  cut  from  the  diary  and  writttn  over  with 
pencil,  handed  to  witness.) 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  this  letter  was  in  the  book  ? 

A.   I  do  not  know  about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  know  auythiug  about  these  letters  written  on  the  leaves  of  the 
diary  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

(A  bowie-knife  and  sheath  and  a  compass  were  shown  to  witness,  and  identi 
fied  by  him  as  having  been  taken  from  the  body  of  Booth.     A  piece  of  map  was 
also  identified  by  witness  as  having  been  taken  from  Horold.     The  diary  and 
piu  were  submitted  to  the  jury  and  examined  by  the  jurors  respectively.) 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradlrv: 

Q.  On  the  trial  before  the  military  commission,  to  which  you  have  referred 
once  or  twice,  were  you  interrogated  as  to  all  the  articles  taken  from  Booth  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  not  then  asked  Avhat  things  were  found  upon  him  1 

A.  I  think  I  was  shown  things,  and  asked  to  say  whether  they  were  found 
there,  but  I  am  not  certain  about  it. 

Q.  You  were  not  asked,  then,  upon  that  trial,  whether  these  things  shown  to 
you  were  all  the  articles  found  upon  his  body  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  you  spoke  of  the  diary  found  upon  him  at  that  time, 
or  not  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  that  you  have  no  recollection  of  having  spoken  of  it,  or  of 
whether  you  did  or  not  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  give  that  diary  with  the  other  articles  1 

A.  To  the  Secretary  of  "War,  Mr.  Stanton. 

Q.  Is  your  recollection  distinct  upon  that  point? 

A.  I  gave  him  all  the  things  I  brought  up. 

Q.  And  among  them  that  diary  ? 

A.  And  among  them  that  diaiy. 

Q.  And  on  trial  before  the  military  commission  nothing  was  said  of  that  diary  i 

A.  Nothing  that  I  recollect.     I  am  unable  to  state  certainly  upon  that  point. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  examined  the  diary  carefully  before  you 
gave  it  to  Mr.  Stanton  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  examined  it  carefully  on  the  steamer  coming  up  the  Potomac 
river. 

Q.  And  you  are  now  under  the  impression  it  is  in  the  same  condition  it  was 
then  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  I  wish  you  to  look  at  the  margins  of  the  cut  leaves  of  the  diary,  and  say 
whether  or  not  there  are  several  leaves  cut  out  at  a  later  period  than  others  ; 
whether  the  last  cutting  does  not  appear  much  more  recent  than  the  other  ] 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  it  does. 

Q.  Did  you  count  the  leaves  that  had  been  cut  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


312  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  memoranda  at  the  time  as  to  the  condition  of  the 
diary  when  30U  received  it ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  How  long  did  you  have  it  in  your  possession  1 

A.  From  about  G  o'clock  in  the  morning  till  about  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  then  deliver  it  to  the  Secretary  of  War? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  When  did  you  see  it  again  ? 

A,  I  think  I  never  saw  it  again  until  I  was  subpoenaed  here  before  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee. 

Q.  Will  you  turn  to  your  memorandum,  and  see  when  you  were  before  the 
Judiciary  Committee  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  certainly  that  I  can  tell. 

Q.  Did  you  go  back  home  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  been  here  ever  since  ? 

A.  I  have  been  here  ever  since.  I  got  into  the  city  on  Sunday  morning,  and 
was  examined  on  Tuesday  morning.  I  think  it  is  six  weeks  yesterday  since  I 
came  to  the  city  ;  I  am  not  certain  ;  I  have  no  data  that  show  when  I  left  home, 
or  the  date  I  arrived  here. 

Q.  Has  there  been  any  other  examination  in  reference  to  this  diary  since 
you  came  here  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,     I  have  seen  it  at  Judge  Holt's  office. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  About  the  16th  of  this  month. 

Q.  Who  were  present  at  that  time  1 

A.  An  officer  who  belongs  to  the  Judge  Advocate  General's  office;  I  think 
Colonel  Barr  is  his  name. 

Q.  Any  one  else  1 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  The  diary  was  produced  1 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  it  carefully  ? 

A.  Not  very;  I  had  examined  it  very  carefully  before  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, both  in  Judge  Holt's  possession,  and  before  the  committee.  I  was  asked 
there  to  read  it  over  and  examine  it  carefully.     I  did  so  twice, 

Q.  Did  you  examine  it  prior  to  going  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Did  you  take  that  diary  from  Booth,  or  did  somebody  else  take  it  and 
hand  it  to  you  ? 

A.   I  think  I  took  it. 

Q.  Was  that  at  the  house  or  barn  1 

A.  It  was  at  the  house. 

Q.  Have  you  stated,  as  well  as  you  can  recollect,  all  that  Booth  said  on  that 
occasion  ? 

A.  I  think  he  asked  for  water,  and  that  he  wanted  to  be  turned  over  on  his 
face.     I  think  he  said  something  about  his  throat  being  stopped  up.     I  asked 
him  to  put  out  his  tongue,     I  did  not   know  but  he  might  be  bleeding  inside 
He  did  so,  and  I  told  him  there  was  no  blood  there. 

Q.   Do  you  recollect  Booth's  saying  Herold  had  nothing  to  do  with  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q  On  your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  when  you  stated 
that  Booth  said  "here's  a  man  Avho  wants  to  come  out,"  did  you  state  "I  think 
he  added  :  '  and  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  it '  "  ? 

A.  I  think  I  said  on  the  trial  before  the  military  commission  that  such  a  thing 
might  have  been  said.     I  recollect  hearing  afterwards  that  it  was  said. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    IL    SURRATT.  313 

Q.  You  do  not  remember,  then,  Avheu  Booth  Baid  Herold  wanted  to  get  out, 
that  he  added,  "and  who  had  nothing  to  do  with  it]  " 

A.  I  do  not  remember  what  I  said, 

Q.  How  do  you  identify  the  various  articles  in  reference  to  which  you  have 
testified — for  instance,  that  carbine?  Are  there  not  thousands  like  it  in  use  in 
the  army  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  have  very  much  the  same  carbines  in  tlie  hands  of  the  men 
of  your  command  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  had  the  Heniy  rifle  in  our  regiment. 

Q.  They  were  repeating  shooters,  were  they  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  carbines  like  these  were  in  common  use  in  the  army  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  would  you  call  this  carbine  ? 

A.  A  Spencer. 

Q,  I  think  you  said  there  was  a  mark  on  it  that  you  put  on  ? 

A.  There  is  a  saddle  mark  on  the  breech. 

Q.  Did  you  put  that  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a  very  common  thing  for  a  carbine  carried  in  the  sad- 
dle to  receive  the  marks  of  the  saddle  ? 

A.  They  are  very  often  rubbed — yes,  sir;  but  I  took  this  mark  to  identify  it 
by  instead  of  putting  another  on. 

Q.  That  mark  attracted  your  attention,  and  you  identify  it  by  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  whether  the  mark  was  apparently  made  artificially,  or 
whether  it  was  apparently  made  by  the  saddle  ? 

A.  I  should  say  it  was  an  accidental  mark  made  in  ordinary  wear;  but  I  do 
not  know. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  it  ? 

A.  It  is  a  mark  that  looks  as  if  it  might  have  been  made  by  rubbing  down 
against  a  hard  portion  of  the  saddle  in  one  place,  then  rubbed  in  another,  until 
the  two,  three,  or  four  places  are  united  together. 

Q.  These  carbines  are  carried  suspended  from  the  shoulder,  are  they  not  ? 

A;  They  are  usually  carried  suspended  by  shoulder  straps,  or  a  sling. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  this  carbine  had  this  strap  on  when  you  took  it? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  said  so.     It  had  some  kind  of  a  strap. 

Q.  Had  it  this  strap  on  it  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the  same  one  or  not. 

Q    Now  what  is  there  by  which  you  identify  this  compass  1 

A.  The  tallow  or  candle  grease  inside  it,  and  the  shape  of  the  box. 

Q.   How  do  you  identify  the  knife? 

A.  The  knife  has  a  spoi  of  rust  on  it,  about  two-thirds  the  way  from  the  hilt 
to  the  point,  right  where  the  bevel  of  the  knife  commences  at  the  end.  It  was 
said  to  be  blood,  but  I  never  thought  it  was  myself.  It  is  the  same  shape  and 
style  of  knife. 

Q.  Have  you  not  seen  other  knives  like  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  not  seen  a  great  many  like  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  only  a  few. 

Q.  You  put  no  mark  on  it  ? 

A.  No.  I  have  no  means  of  identifying  it  except  by  the  description  I  have 
given. 

Q.  You  did  not  look  at  the  name  of  the  maker  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  the  name  of  the  maker  is  on  it.  I  have  looked 
21 


314  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT. 

at  it  since  and  noticed  the  words  "Rio  Grande  camp-knife"  on  it.  I  have  no 
means  of  identifying  it  except  what  I  have  stated,  and  my  general  recollection 
of  the  style  of  the  knife. 

Q.  Wbat  became  of  the  horse  Booth  rode  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Q,  You  did  not  see  his  horse  at  all  1 

A.  He  had  no  horse  that  I  know  of  when  I  found  him.     I  ueard  of  none. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  him  say  anything  about  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Yoii  did  not  hear  him  speak  of  having  killed  his  horse  1 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  certain  articles  placed  before  you  on  the  trial  before  the 
military  commission  for  identification — you  had  the  knife,  pair  of  pistols,  belt, 
holster,  file,  pocket  compass,  spur,  carbine,  cartridges,  and  bills  of  exchange 
shown  you  ? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  But  not  the  diary  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  seeing  it,  or  of  having  anything  said  to  me 
about  it. 

Q.  Before  your  examination,  when  you  were  called  on  to  ascertain  what  you 
knew,  was  anything  said  about  it  ? 

A.  Nobody  ever  said  anything  to  me  about  it. 

Q.  Nobody  ever  said  anything  to  you  about  the  diary  after  you  gave  it  to 
Mr.  Stanton  1 

A.  Not  a  word. 

By  Mr,  Pierrepont: 

Q.  What  do  you  know  about  that  carbine  being  loaded  1 
A.  It  had  seven  cartridges  in  the  chambers,  and  one  in  the  barrel.     I  took 
them  out  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Stanton. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Did  you  deliver  all  these  articles  over  to  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  only  delivered  such  as  were  shown  with  the  diary.  The 
others  came  up  on  the  boat  with  the  soldiers,  and  in  their  charge. 

Q.  What  did  you  deliver  personally? 

A.  The  diary  and  those  things  that  were  shown  with  it. 

Q.  The  papers  that  were  in  the  diary  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  with  this  little  piece  of  a  map,  shavings,  compass,  and  pin.  The 
carbine,  pistols,  and  knife  came  with  the  soldiers. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  this  diary  came  into  your  possession  about 
six  o'clock  in  the  morning;   at  what  time  was  Booth  shot  ? 

A.  I  think  it  Avas  a  quarter  past  three,  or  a  quarter  of  four.  I  don't  know 
precisely. 

Q.  When  were  these  articles  taken  from  his  person  ? 

A.  About  seven,  or  a  few  minutes  before. 

Q.  Who  took  them  from  his  person  ? 

A.  I  took  most  of  them,  I  think.     I  am  not  certain  about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAV  who  took  the  diary  from  his  person  ? 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Who  came  up  on  the  boat  with  you  ? 

A.  Not  any  one. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

William  E.  Wheeler — residence,  Chicopee,  Massachusetts — sworn  and  ex- 
amined. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  315 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.   What  is  your  occupation  1 

A.  I  am  in  the  livery  bu^^iiiess  at  present. 

Q.  State  if  yon  knew  J.  Wilkes  Booth,  the  actor. 

A.  I  was  not  personally  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  by  sight  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  when  yon  saw  him. 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  stage  in  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  ])laying.  That  was 
the  first  time  1  ever  saw  him.     Afterwards  I  saw  him  in  Montreal, 

Q.  When  was  that? 

A.  That  was  sometime  in  October  or  November,  1864. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  after  that,  and  previous  to  the  assassination  of  the  Pres- 
ident ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  That  is  the  last  time  you  saw  him  1 

A,  I  never  saw  him  but  once  in  Montreal. 

Q.  Will  you  state  when,  as  near  as  you  can  recollect,  in  what  part  of  the  city, 
and  in  what  company  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  the  date.  1  saw  him  come  across  the  street  from  a  broker's 
office,  or  near  a  broker's  office,  to  the  St.  Lawrence  Hotel,  in  company  with 
another  man;  who  the  man  was,  at  that  time  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  speak  to  that  other  man  afterwards  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  not  pointed  out  to  you  at  that  time 

Mr.  Braulkv.  Never  mind  ;  that  would  not  be  evidence. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  learn  the  name  of  this  person  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  Stop;  that  is  nor  a  proper  question. 

The  Court.  The  witness  must  only  state  what  he  knows  of  his  own  know!-- 
edge. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  time  you  ever  saw  Booth  ? 

A.  That  is  all  I  can  say  about  him,  unless  I  can  speak  of  the  man  being  pointed 
out  to  me. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  the  person  in  whose  compmy  you  saw  him  at  that  time  T 

A.  He  was  a  large  man,  thick-set,  with  a  flushed,  red  face. 

Q.  What  was  the  color  of  his  hair  ] 

A.  I  cannot  remember  as  to  that.     It  was  rather  dark,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  man  afterwards  ? 

A,  I  did,  or  one  that  I  took  to  be  the  same  man. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  Walking  on  the  street  one  evening;  he  was  pointed  out  to  me,  and  his 
name 

Mr.  jMerriciv.  No  matter  what  his  name  was. 

Q.  You  never  spoke  to  him  i' 

A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 
Q.  You  can  say  whether  it  was  or  not  this  gentleman  (the  prisoner)  sitting 

by  me  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  him,  until  yesterday,  in  my  life. 

Luther  Byron  Baker — residence,  Lansingr,  Michi":an — sworn  ■and  examined : 
By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  What  is  your  present  occupation  1 

A.  Farming. 

Q.  State  how  you  were  employed  in  the  year  1865,  and  previous  thereto  ? 

A.  1  was  employed  by  General  Baker,  provost  marshalof  the  War  Department. 


316  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  ? 

A.  As  a  detective. 

Q.  Had  you  been  in  the  army  1   and  if  so,  in  what  capacity  ? 

A.  I  had  been  quartermaster  of  the  first  District  of  Columbia  cavahy. 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  were  one  of  the  parties  who  went  in  pursuit  of 
Booth,  after  the  assassination  of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Wdl  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  jury,  in  your  own  way,  all  that 
occurred  from  the  time  you  left  the  city  in  pursuit  of  Booth  until  his  capture. 
Eirst  state  under  whose  command  you  were. 

A.  I  was  under  the  command  of  General  Baker. 

The  District  Attorney.  Go  on  and  state  now  the  whole  history. 

WiTNKSS.  Will  it  be  necessary  to  commence  from  my  first  search?  I  went 
on  three  distinct  trips. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  No,  sir;  commence  and  state  the  particulars  connected 
with  the  trip  which  resulted  in  the  capture  of  Booth. 

The  District  Attorney.  That  will  be  sufficient — to  state  all  that  occurred 
during  that  trip.     Colonel  Conger,  I  believe,  had  command  of  the  party. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  about  that,  Mr.  Carrington. 

Witness.  The  date  that  I  left  Washington  has  now  escaped  my  mind ;  but 
I  will  state  that  I  left  Washington  under  the  orders  of  General  Baker,  in  com- 
pany with  Colonel  Conger,  Lieutenant  Doherty,  and  twenty  or  twenty-five 
soldiers  detailed  for  the  purpose.  I  received  my  orders  from  General  Baker. 
We  were  to  go  to  Belle  Plain  with  this  command  and  search  for  Booth  and 
Herold,  as  he  was  satisfied  they  had  crossed  the  Potomac  at  or  near  Mathias 
Point.  I  obtained  transportation  for  our  command  to  Belle  Plain.  We  arrived 
there  about  10  o'clock  the  same  evening,  disembarked,  and  went  upon  the  bluff. 
From  that  time  Colonel  Conger  took  the  lead,  as  he  stated  he  was  acquainted 
with  the  country,  and  knew  the  direction  that  we  wished  to  take.  Colonel 
Conger  and  myself,  under  assiamed  names,  went  in  advance  of  the  command,  per- 
haps, from  a  half  mile  to  a  mile  in  advance — making  calls,  inquiring  the  way,  and 
assuming  that  we  had  been  separated  from  a  party  with  which  we  had  crossed  the 
Potomac  and  were  pursued  by  the  Yankees,  and  wished  to  find  the  i-emainder 
of  our  party.  We  retained  these  characters  until  daylight,  and  made,  perhaps, 
fifteen  or  twenty  calls  during  the  night,  the  command  following  at  a  convenient 
distance,  and  we  communicating  with  them  through  some  orderlies,  who  wei-e 
with  us,  or  kept  within  reach.  At  daylight  we  threw  off  these  chaiacters  and 
partook  of  some  refreshments  at  Dr.  Ash  ton's,  I  think,  who  lived  near  the 
Bappahannock  river.  Our  party  then  separated,  Colonel  Conger  and  myself 
taking  six  or  eight  soldiers  with  us.  Lieutenant  Doherty  taking  the  remainder 
with  him.  He,  I  think,  went  to  the  right,  down  the  Potomac,  and  we  went 
down  the  Rappahannock  river.  The  party  with  which  I  was,  reached  Port 
Conway  before  Lieutenant  Doherty's  party,  but  they  soon  came  up.  This 
was  about  3  or  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  We  went  into  the  yard  of  a  gentle- 
man by  the  name  of  Turner,  and  took  some  refreshments,  while  the  soldiers  and 
horses  were  resting.  Leaving  Colonel  Conger  in  the  hall,  I  went  to  the  ferry, 
at  Port  Conway,  telling  Colonel  Conger  that  I  would  go  and  ascertain  if  1  could 
get  any  information  there,  and  Avould  cross  the  river  if  necessary.  I  went  im- 
mediately to  the  ferry.  The  first  man  that  I  came  across  was  a  colored  man. 
I  did  not  succeed  in  getting  any  information  from  him,  and  turned  to  the  right 
and  saw  a  man  and  his  wife  sitting  by  their  door.  Their  house  was  perhaps 
four  or  five  rods  from  the  ferry.  1  went  with  them  and  asked  them  if  they  had 
seen  within  a  day  or  two  any  citizens  passing  that  way ;  finally  I  asked  them 
if  they  had  seen  a  lame  man.  They  said  they  had  ;  and  from  their  description, 
I  concluded  it  must  have  beeji  Bootli  and  Herold.  I  then  took  a  likeness  of 
Booth  from  my  pocket,  and  asked  this  fisherman  (Rollins  Avas  hia  name)  if  that 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  IT.  SURRATT.  317 

picture  rosoinWod  tlip  lame  man?  He  said  it  did,  oxcopt  the  mnu?tache,  which 
the  lame  man  did  not  have.  I  th?n  took  llerold's  picture  from  my  pocket, 
showed  it  to  him,  and  he  said  he  thoii<i;ht  that  resembled  the  small  man  who 
carried  the  carbines  I  then  learned  from  liollinp,  that  the  day  before,  these  par- 
ties, Booth  and  llcrold,  came  to  the  ferry  about  9.}  o'clock  in  the  morning.  They 
were  lirought  there  by  a  colored  boy  by  the  name  of  Cliarley  Lucas.  Booth 
paid  Lucus  ten  dollars  for  bringing  him  from  Dr.  Stewart's  to  the  ferry.  While 
they  were  there,  Lucas  left  them  and  returned.  Ilerold  came  to  this  Rollins, 
the  fisherman,  and  tried  to  engage  him  to  take  them  across  the  ferry.  'I'hey 
said  they  had  escaped  from  the  Yankees,  and  were  anxious  to  get  across.  Rol- 
lins said  he  could  not  just  then,  for  he  had  to  go  and  attend  to  his  nets.  They 
urged  him  very  strongly,  and  offered  him  ten  dollars  in  gold  if  he  would  take 
them  across  immediately.  He  persisted  in  refu!*ing  to  do  it  then,  but  said  that 
he  would  in  the  course  of  an  hour,  and  then  went  away  to  attend  to  his  nets. 
Durinjr  that  time  three  confederate  soldiers  came  down  and  entered  intoconver- 
sation  with  Booth  and  Herold.  Rollins  gave  their  names  as  Jett,  Ruggles,  and 
Bainbridge.  Rollins  soon  returned,  when  Herold  came  to  him  and  said  that 
if  it  would  make  no  diflterence  with  him,  he  need  not  take  them  across  ;  that  they 
had  faUen  in  with  friends  and  they  would  not  trouble  him  any  further.  During 
this  time  HerohUiad  placed  the  carbine  inside  of  Rolling's  house  for'safe-keeping, 
together  with  a  blanket  that  was  rolled  and  strapped  up.  He  took  these  from 
the  house,  and  they  went  away  in  company  with  these  confederate  soldiers,  who 
had  hailed  the  ferry. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  he  left  the  carbine  and  blankets  at  Rollins's  house  1 

A.  He  left  them  there  for  safe-keeping  until  Rollins  should  come  back.  He 
then  took  them  and  left.  As  soon  as  1  received  this  information  I  sent  word 
immediately  to  Colonel  Conger,  at  Mr.  Tunuir's.  Lieutenant  Dolierty  came 
to  the  ferry  shortly  after  I  came,  and  I  told  him  I  had  important  information, 
and  the  sooner  the  command  got  across  the  river  the  better,  and  I  hailed  the 
ferry.  My  orderly  went  for  Colonel  Conger,  and  he  soon  came  down,  when  we 
were  ferried  across  the  river,  taking  this  fisherman,  Rollins,  along  as  a  guide. 
At  his  request  we  arrested  him  in  order  to  avert  suspicion.  We  crossed  the 
river  and  left  the  impres.-ion  there  that  we  were  going  to  Fredericksburg  to  join 
our  command.  We  proceeded  towards  Bowling  Green,  Avhicli  Rollins  told  us 
was  fifteen  miles  from  the  ferry. 

Mr.  Bkaui,KY.  I  should  like  to  know  how  much  longer  this  narrative  is  going 
to  contiinie.  1  do  not  see  the  object  of  it,  and  it  is  really  taking  up  a  great  deal 
of  precious  tiine. 

The  Court.  That  is  a  fact,  it  is.  Just  come  to  the  place  where  you  found 
Booth. 

Mr.  Bkadlky.  I  do  not  want  to  go  all  over  Caroline  county. 

Mr.  PlKKREPONT.  We  do  not  think  this  material,  yonr  honor,  and  hope  the 
witness  will  act  u])on  your  suggestion,  and  come  at  once  to  Mr.  Garrett's  house, 
the  place,  1  believe,  where  Booth  was  captured. 

Witness.  On  reaching  Bowling  Green,  we  found  Captain  Jett.  Upon  in- 
formation received  from  Captain  Jett,  we  proceeded  to  the  Garrett  house. 

Q.  Did  he  go  with  you  ? 

A.  Y'es,  sir;  he  accompanied  us  as  far  as  he  could.  There  were  two  gates. 
I  went  through  the  first  to  the  second,  holding  it  open  for  the  command  to  go 
through.  I  then  mounted  my  horse  and  went  with  them  to  the  house.  I  came 
up  to  a  side  door  and  dismounted  to  enter,  when  an  old  man  put  his  head  out  ot 
the  window  and  wanted  to  know  what  the  matter  was. 

Mr.  I*iERUKPo.\T.  State  what  time  this  was. 

A.  This  was,  1  think,  12  o'clock  at  night,  and  quite  dark.     I  said  to  the  old 


318  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT. 

gentleman,  "Never  mind,  light  a  candle,  and  open  the  door."  He  opened  the 
door  and  I  stepped  inside.  Shortly  after  he  came  on  the  porch  with  a  candle. 
I  placed  my  hand  on  his  shoulder,  and,  presenting  my  pistol,  asked  him  where 
those  two  men  were  who  weie  stopping  with  him.  He  seemed  very  much 
frightened,  and  unable  to  answer.  He  finally  said  that  they  were  not  there ; 
that  they  had  gone  to  the  woods.  I  told  him  I  knew  better;  that  he  must  not 
tell  me  any  such  stuff.  At  that  time  Colonel  Conger  came  into  the  door  and 
threatened  to  hang  him  on  one  of  the  trees,  if  he  did  not  tell  the  truth.  About 
this  time  a  young  man  in  confederate  uniform  entered.  He  says,  "Gentlemen, 
don't  injure  father;  I  will  tell  you  all  about  ];hese  men."  Hearing  that,  I  let  go 
of  the  old  gentleman.  This  person  proved  to  be  young  Garrett.  He  says, 
"They  are  in  the  barn."  I  then  took  young  Garrett  in  charge.  Colonel  Conger 
went  out  to  throw  the  men  about  the  barn,  and  I  proceeded  with  Garrett  there. 
When  I  arrived,  the  cavalry  were  arranging  themselves  about  it.  I  told  Garrett 
he  must  go  in  and  demand  the  arms  of  the  persons  in  the  barn,  as  we  found  them 
in  his  custody,  and  demand  their  surrender.  I  then  unlocked  the  barn,  and  he 
went  in.  I  lieard  some  low  conversation.  Among  other  things  I  heard  some 
one  say  to  Garrett,  "You  have  betrayed  us;  get  out  of  here."  Garrett  soon  came 
to  the  door  again,  anxious  to  get  out.  When  he  came  out  I  locked  the  door, 
and  retained  the  key  after  that  myself.  It  was  then  decided  tlyit  the  men  must 
be  dismounted,  in  order  to  effectually  secure  the  barn,  as  the  horses  would  not 
stand  the  fire,  we  having  determined  to  fire  the  barn,  in  case  they  did  not  sur- 
render. I  made  a  proposition  to  the  persons  in  the  barn  that  they  should  hand 
out  their  arras  to  Mr.  Garrett,  in  whose  possession  we  found  them,  and  surrender. 
I  told  them  that  we  had  a  force  of  fifty  cavalrymen  about  the  barn,  armed  with 
carbines  and  pistols,  and  it  was  useless  for  them  to  resist.  I  also  told  them  if 
they  did  not  surrender  we  should  lire  the  barn,  and  thus  have  a  bonfire  and  a 
shooting  match.  Booth  says,  "  Captain,  this  is  hard ;  we  are  guilty  of  no  crime." 
I  wont  be  sure  that  he  used  the  plural ;  he  may  have  said  "he"  was  guilty  of 
no  crime.  He  made  a  proposition  to  me  to  have  me  draw  my  men  up  twenty 
yards  from  the  door,  and  let  him  come  out  and  fight  the  whole  command.  I 
told  him  that  we  had  not  come  there  for  that  purpose;  that  we  had  come  to  cap- 
ture him,  and  had  him  secure  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  I  repeated  the  warning, 
that  if  he  did  not  surrender  in  a  few  moments  we  should  fire  the  barn.  This 
conversation,  and  the  preparations  about  the  barn,  must  have  occupied  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour.  Booth  finally  said,  "There  is  a  man  here  who  wishes  to 
surrender."  I  then  went  to  the  door  and  unlocked  it,  telling  him  he  could  come 
out  if  he  would  bring  his  arms.  A  voice  from  the  inside  near  the  door  said,  "  I 
have  no  arms;  1  know  nothing  about  this  man."  Another  voice  then  said, 
"This  man  is  guilty  of  no  crime;  he  has  no  arms;  they  are  mine,  and  I  shall 
keep  them."  1  still  insisted  that  he  should  bring  out  the  carbine,  which  I  had 
ascertained  he  had  carried  across  the  river.  Seeing  that  it  was  impossible  to  get  out 
any  arms,  I  opened  the  door,  and  told  Herold  to  put  out  his  hands.  He  did  so,  and 
I  drew  him  out.  Garrett  stood  near  me,  and  I  think  took  hold  of  him.  1  then 
turned  him  over  to  Lieutenant  Doheity,  who  was  near  by,  and  locked  the 
door  again.  Colonel  Conger  came  near  by  and  said,  "  We  had  better  fire  the 
barn."  T  said  "The  quicker  the  better."  I  told  Booth  that  he  could  have 
two  minutes  more ;  that  the  time  for  action  had  come.  He  says,  "  Well, 
my  brave  boys,  you  can  prepare  a  stretcher  for  me."  Then  he  made 
another  pioposition  to  me ;  he  says,  "  Captain,  I  consider  you  to  be  a  brave 
and  an  honorable  man ;  now  let  me  come  out  and  fight  your  whole  com- 
mand." 1  made  no  reply  to  this  last  proposition.  He  then  remarked,  in  a  loud 
clear  voice,  "  One  more  stain  on  the  old  banner."  The  fire  had  now  sprung  up 
in  the  barn  from  the  right-hand  side,  I  think.  I  unlocked  the  door,  but  held 
the  lock  in  the  hasp  for  a  moment,  and  then  opened  it  and  looked  in.  The  in- 
side of  the  barn  was  lighted  iip  so  that  everything  could  be  distinguished  very 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SUREATT.  319 

readily.  I  saw  Booth  going  from  the  centre  of  the  barn  towards  the  fire,  with 
his  carbine  under  his  right  arm  ready  for  use,  and  one  crutch.  He  came  or  went 
near  the  fire,  looking  along  the  crevices  of  the  barn,  as  tliough  seeking;  to  dis- 
cover the  one  who  had  kindled  the  fire.  He  then  stopped  as  though  he  would 
pick  up  something  to  throw  on  the  fire.  That  was  the  impression  I  had.  He 
did  take  hold  of  a  piece  of  furniture  ;  what  it  was  1  do  not  know,  but  it  had  Ipgs. 
He  seemed,  however,  to  abandon  the  idea  in  a  moment,  and  turned  and  looked 
all  around  the  barn,  until  his  eye  rested  u])on  the  door  as  I  was  holding  it  open. 
He  wheeled  round  and  started  towards  it,  dropping  his  crutch.  He  had  ap- 
})roached,  I  should  think,  to  within  ten  or  fifteen  feet  of  the  door,  when  I  heard 
the  report  of  a  pistol.  Booth  instantly  threw  up  his  hands  and  fell.  I  then 
jumped  into  the  door,  threw  it  open,  and  went  immediately  to  the  spot  where  he 
lay.  Not  knowing  that  he  was  mortally  wounded,  I  caught  him  by  the  armsiu 
the  first  place  to  secure  him,  but  found  that  he  was  powerless.  1  then  took  the 
pistol  from  his  hand,  and  observed  the  carbine  lying  rather  between  his  legs ;  I 
then  threw  back  his  coat  and  saw  that  he  had  a  belt  with  a  bowie-knife  in  it,  and,  I 
think,  a  pistol.  Garrett  came  in,  I  think,  immediately  after  me  and  ran  by  me, 
calling  upon  the  soldiers  to  extinguish  the  fire.  Conger  also  came  in  and  knelt 
down  near  where  I  was  over  the  body  of  Booth,  and  remarked,  "  He  shot  him- 
self." This  I  disputed,  saying  I  saw  him  the  whole  time,  and  that  some  one 
had  shot  him,  and  that  the  man  who  did  should  go  to  Washington  under  arrest. 
Conger  then  left  and  went  to  assist  the  soldiers  in  extinguishing  the  fire,  which  was 
making  rapid  progress.  The  fire  was  rendering  it  so  warm  that  when  he  came  back 
I  proposed  taking  Booth  out  of  the  barn,  which  we  did,  with  the  assistance  of  some 
soldiers,  and  laid  him  near  a  tree.  I  took  a  cup,  which  I  always  carried,  from  my 
pocket,  and  called  for  some  water.  Then  threw  some  in  his  face  and  put  some  in 
his  mouth,  which  he  blew  out,  at  the  same  time  opening  his  eyes,  and  moving  his 
tongue  as  though  he  would  say  something.  I  distinguished  these  words  in  a 
very  faint  whisper  :  "  Tell  mother,  tell  mother."  He  then  seemed  to  swoon  away 
again.  The  barn  was  now  burning  so  fiercely,  that  it  caused  the  heat  to  become 
oppressive  in  the  close  position  we  then  were  to  it,  so  we  carried  Booth  to  the 
piazza  of  the  house,  when  the  ladies  got  an  old  mattress,  on  which  we  laid  his 
head.  They  also  brought  some  ice-water.  I  then  took  a  cloth  and  washed  liis 
face  and  his  wound.  In  the  mean  time  a  physician  had  been  sent  for.  About 
this  time  he  again  came  to  himself,  opened  his  eyes,  and  said:  "Kill  me."  I 
said,  "  No,  Booth."  He  looked  at  me  with  a  great  deal  of  surprise,  as  I  supposed 
at  my  knowing  bis  name.  I  added  :  "  We  did  not  wish  to  kill  you,  and  we 
hope  you  will  recover;  you  were  shot  against  orders."  Says  he, "  Kill  me,  kill  me." 
Then  he  repeated  what  he  had  said  at  the  barn  :  "  Tell  mother  1  die  for  my  coun- 
try ;  I  have  done  what  I  thought  was  for  the  best."  He  then  made  an  attempt 
to  cough.  Colonel  Conger,  who  was  near  by,  pressed  him  near  the  throat  with 
his  hand,  and  told  him  to  put  outjhis  tongue.  He  put  it  out,  and  Colonel  Conger 
says,  "  There  is  no  blood  on  it,"  which  seemed  to  satisfy  him.  He  then  ex- 
claimed, "  ]My  hands."  I  took  one  of  his  hands,  held  it  iip  before  him,  and 
washed  it  with  ice-water.  He  looked  at  it  and  says,  "  Useless,  useless."  I 
then  dropped  it.  Ha[)pening  to  make  some  inquiry  of  Colonel  Conger  as  to 
Captain  Jett,  as  to  where  he  was,  Booth  looked  up  and  said,  "  Did  Jett  betray 
me"/"  Thinking  it  would  be  no  use  to  say  anything  about  Jett,  1  told  him  not 
to  mind  about  Jett.  I  think  this  was  all  he  said  before  he  died.  TIh^  physician 
soon  arrived,  and  I  told  him  I  wished  he  would  tell  me  how  long  Booth  would 
live,  for  if  he  was  going  to  live  more  than  two  hours,  1  would  take  him  as  he 
was  to  Washington.  The  physician  produced  a  box  of  surgical  instruments 
and  undertook  to  probe  the  wound.  I  told  him  that  that  was  of  no  use  ;  that 
the  ball  went  through.  He  then  looked  on  the  other  side  of  his  neck  and  re- 
marked that  he  saw  it  had  gone  through.  Booth's  face  shortly  became  a  great 
deal  disfigured.     He  seemed  to  be  suflering  great  pain,  and  the  physician  gave 


320  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

it  as  his  opinion  that  he  wonld  die  in  the  course  of  an  hour.  Colonel  Conger 
said  he  woukln't  wait,  but  would  take  his  effects  and  go  to  Washington,  as  it 
was  important  the  information  should  reach  there.  I  then  took  everything  from 
Booth's  pockets,  which  articles  consisted  of  a  diary,  a  pocket  knife,  some  matches, 
some  shavings  that  seemed  to  have  been  whittled  up  to  kindle  a  fire  with,  and 
a  pocket  compass.  I  would  say  that  this  compass  had  the  droppings  of  a  candle 
all  around  it,  as  though  it  had  been  used  in  the  night  The  articles  I  have  men- 
tioned are  all  of  the  articles  that  I  remember  taking  from  his  person  except  his 
arms. 

Q.  Now  describe  the  arms. 

A.  There  was  a  pin  which  Colonel  Conger  took  from  his  undei  shirt  as  we 
tore  his  collar  open. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Examine  these  articles,  (handing  witness  various  packages,)  and  state  if 
they  are  the  ones  that  you  took  from  the  person  of  Booth  at  that  time. 

A.  (Holding  up  a  large  bowie-knife,)  that  is  the  knife,  I  am  positive.  This 
is  the  compass,  and  this  is  the  pin,  though  it  was  not  in  this  shape.  (These 
articles  are  the  same  as  those  identified  by  other  witnesses.) 

Q.  That  pin  was  straight,  was  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  pinned  his  undershirt.  This  map  I  do  not  know  anything 
about.  We  took  something  of  that  kind  from  Herold.  I  did  not  take  it  myself. 
This  I  shoiild  think  was  the  diary.  (Holding  in  his  hand  the  book  identified 
by  other  winesses  as  such.) 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT.  Examine  it,  so  that  you  can  be  sure. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  you  examine  it  then? 

Witness.  I  had  this  book  in  my  hand  as  long  as  1  have  now,  about  a  minute, 
and  then  handed  it  over  to  (Colonel  Conger. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Does  it  look  like  the  book  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  the  book. 

Q.  Examine  that  carbine  and  see  if  you  identify  it. 

A.  I  did  not  bring  the  carbine  to  this  city ;  1  had  it  in  my  hand.  It  was 
either  th's  one,  or  one  very  much  like  it.     Colonel  Conger  had  charge  of  that. 

Q.  Did  Booth  have  that  in  his  possession  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  lay  right  between  his  legs  when  he  fell.  I  saw  him  using  it 
in  the  barn,  holding  it  as  if  ready  to  shoot  as  he  went  toward  the  fire. 

Q.  State  whether  you  know  anything  about  this  paper  being  connected  with 
the  diary.     (Handing  witness  a  slip  of  paper  with  pencil  writing  on  it.) 

A.  About  a  week  or  ten  days  after  the  assassination  I  was  sent  back  by  General 
Baker  over  the  same  track  that  we  had  previously  taken  for  information  and  for 
witnesses.  From  this  colored  boy  Lucas,  who  brought  them  to  the  ferry,  I  as- 
certained that  while  Booth  was  at  his  house  the  night  before,  he  took  oixt  a  book — 
from  the  description  of  the  boy,  I  should  think  it  was  his  diary — and  wrote  a 
note. 

Q.  You  say  at  his  house ;  at  whose  house  do  you  mean  ? 

A.  At  the  darkey's  house. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object  to  that,  if  your  honor  please.  What  he  ascertained 
from  the  darkey  is  not  evidence. 

The  Court.  No  information  that  he  got  from  the  colored  boy  is  evidence. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  No,  sir ;  it  is  not.     We  do  not  care  anything  about  it. 

Q.   State  how  you  came  into  possession  of  this  leaf. 

A.  I  found  it  in  the  possession  of  one  Dr.  Stewart,  who  lives  about  ten  miles 
from  the  Potomac,  on  the  road  that  Booth  and  Herold  took. 

Q.  The  top  reading  of  it  is  torn  off.     What  do  you  know  about  that  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  321 

A.  I  met  Dr.  Stewart  and  told  liim  I  had  understood  that  he  had  a  note 
which  was  written  by  Booth.  He  said  he  had.  I  told  him  who  1  was,  and 
that  I  wished  to  get  it. 

Mr.  Bradlhy.  Stop  one  moment.  Is  Booth's  name  signed  to  it,  or  is  it  in 
his  handwriting  ?  I  apprehend,  your  honor,  that  Dr.  Stewart's  declarations  can- 
not be  given  in  evidence  here. 

The  Coi'RT.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  AVe  do  not  want  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  I  hope  counsel  will  interpose  to  prevent  the  witness 
stating  what  he  admits  is  not  evidence.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  constantly  inter- 
rupting him. 

Q.  State  where  you  got  that  from. 

A.  It  was  handed  to  me  by  Dr  Stewart.  His  wife  came  up  and  tore  this 
piece  that  is  torn  off  from  it  ;  tore  off  Dr.  Stewart's  name.  I  saw  what  the  name 
was  before  she  tore  it  off. 

Q.  Will  you  take  that  paper  and  state  what  you  know  about  it  in  connection 
with  the  diary  1 

A.  I  brought  it  to  this  city.  General  Baker  and  myself  went  to  the  "War 
Department  and  took  and  compared  this  leaf  with  the  diary,  or  Major  Eckert 
did  in  our  presence. 

Q.  Who  do  you  say  made  the  comparison  ? 

A.  I  think,  Major  Eckert,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

Q.  Can  you  find  where  it  is  torn  off? 

A.  I  think  so.  I  saw  this  leaf  compared  with  the  diary,  and  the  conclusion 
arrived  at  was  that  it  belonged  to  the  diary. 

Witne.^s  here  pointed  out  to  the  jury  the  place  where  it  was  torn  off. 

Mr.  Pierrepoxt.  I  now  propose  to  read  a  copy  of  what  is  written  on  that  leaf, 
as  the  original  is  somewhat  blurred,  and  therefore  a  little  more  ditHcult  to  read 
from. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Let  us  see  first  if  there  is  anything  about  the  copy  or  the 
original  that  is  admissible. 

Mr.  PiERREi'OM".  Do  you  require  us  to  prove  the  handwriting? 

Mr.  Bradley.  1  require  you  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  any  paper  introduced 
as  evidence  in  this  case. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  will  prove  the  handwriting. 

The  CoiRT.  That  would  be  a  more  orderly  way  of  proceeding*. 

Mr.  PiERREPON'T.  We  have  merely  shown  what  Dr.  Stewart  said  about  it. 

Mr.  Bradlby.  Dr.  Stewart  cannot  sav  a  word  about  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiN'T.  Undoubtedly  we  are  obliged  to  prove  the  handwriting  if 
you  require  it,  but  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  necessary,  inasmuch  as  it  seems 
to  be  exactly  the  same  handwriting  as  the  other.  I  want  you  to  hand  this  leaf 
to  the  jury,  and  let  them  see  whether  it  fits  or  not.  That  is  a  matter  of  the 
sight. 

(The  book  and  leaf  were  then  handed  to  the  jury  for  inspection.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  the  other  leaf  on  which  there  was  writing? 

A.  I  know  nothing  of  any  other  leaf. 

Q.  Examine  that  field-glass,  if  you  please,  and  state  if  you  identify  it. 

A.  I  tiiinkit  was  in  the  latter  part  of  July,  after  the  assassination,  that  I  first 
saw  this  field-glass.  I  saw  it  at  the  Garrett  place,  where  Booth  was  captured. 
I  was  in  among  the  ruins  of  the  barn,  poking  among  the  ashes  to  ascertain  if  I 
could  find  any  of  the  remains  of  the  field-glass  which  I  had  been  told 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  what  you  had  been  told. 

WiT.\ESS,  resuming.  I  found  the  remains  of  a  cartridge-box  ;  some  l(>ad,  which 
seemed  to  have  been  melted,  and  a  little  wad.  While  I  was  there  I  ascertained 
from  a  small  boy,  who  belonged  to  the  place 


o 


22  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    8URRATT. 


Mr.  Bradley.  Stop. 

The  District  Attorney.  Don't  state  what  tlie  boy  said.  Just  state  what 
you  did  after  having  this  conversation  with  the  boy. 

Witness.  I  then  asked  Mr.  Garrett  if  he  had  iu  his  possession  a  field-glass 
which  Booth  brought  there. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Don't  state  what  he  answered. 

Mr.  PiERRtPONT.  Just  state  what  you  did  after  the  conversation  with  Mr. 
Garrett. 

Witness.  During  a  conversation  with  him  I  ascertained 

The  Court.  Don't  state  what  you  ascertained  from  this  conversation. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  asceitained  something  that  led  you  to  do  what? 

A.  To  go  iu  search  of  the  glass. 

Q.  Did  you  find  it  1 

A.  Mr.  Garrett  and  myself  found  it  about  nine  miles  from  Garrett's  place. 

Q.  Was  it  the  same  Mr.  Garrett  who  was  on  the  stand  here  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  secreted  in  a  chamber,  in  a  clothes  cliest.  I  took  it  and 
brought  it  to  Washington.  General  Baker  and  I  took  it  to  the  War  Department, 
and  there  it  was  left. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  same  glass  ? 

A.  This  is  the  glass,  as  far  as  my  judgment  goes. 

Cross-examination  : 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Is  there  any  mark  on  that  glass  by  which  you  identify  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  What  is  it? 

A.  This  thumb-screw  and  the  label  on  it,  I  noticed  as  being  peculiar. 

Q.  You  never  saw  one  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  one  like  it  before. 

JMr.  Pierrepont.  Just  show  that  to  the  jury  ;  I  want  them  to  see  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind.  You  will  have  to  bring  it  nearer  to  the  party 
than  that  to  make  it  evidence.  There  is  nothing  whatever  to  connect  it  with 
these  parties. 

The  Assistant  District  Attorney.  We  think  there  is. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  In  our  view  it  is  evidence  enough  to  go  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  witness  is  now  under  my  cross-examination;  when  I  am 
through  you  can  take  him. 

Q.  You  never  saw  one  before  like  it  ? 
.  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  since  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  whose  house  did  you  find  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  name  of  the  farmer,  but  about  nine  miles  from  the 
Gan-ett  place.     I  think  they  were  relatives  of  the  Garretts. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  river  or  not  ? 

A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  In  what  direction  ? 

A.  In  the  direction  of  Fredericksburg,  rather  up  the  river. 

Q.  On  the  main  road  from  Port  Royal  to  Fredericksburg  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  no  main  travel  on  that  road. 

Q.  Are  y(;u  quite  sure  Colonel  Conger  did  not  take  that  glass  from  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  enumerate  what  articles  Conger  did  take  from  him  1 

A.  He  took  the  diary,  his  compass,  I  think,  a  pocket  knife,  so  m  e  matcbe 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  323 

and  shavings.  I  took  some  of  these  articles  from  him.  Wc  were  both  at  work 
over  him  getting  the  things  out  of  his  pockets,  as  he  was  not  dead.  One  hehl 
him  up,  and  the  other  took  the  things  from  his  back  coat-pocket. 

Q.  Is  what  jou  have  stated  all  that  you  recollect  having  taken  from  his  per- 
son ? 

A.  All  except  his  arms. 

Q.  I  mean  that  Colonel  Conger  took  from  him  ? 

A.  That  is  all  1  recollect. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  pocket  knife  ? 

A.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing.  The  things  were  taken  by  Colonel  Conger 
immediately  to  the  War  Department.  I  am  not  positive  in  regard  to  the  pocket 
knife.     It  is  an  impression  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Booth  said  more  than  what  you  have  stated  to 
us  1 

A.  I  think  he  did,  in  the  barn  before  he  was  shot. 

Q.  After  he  was  shot  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  more  than  what  I  have  stated. 

Q.  Where  were  you  during  the  "  conspiracy  trials,"  as  they  are  called  1 

A.  I  was  in  this  city. 

Q.  Were  you  called  as  a  witness  ] 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  beforehand  by  any  person  connected  with  it  ? 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Were  you  inquired  of  as  to  what  you  knew  about  it  ? 

A.  I  had  given  my  testimony  to  Judge  llolt  on  board  of  the  gun-boat  on 
which  Booth's  body  was  placed  when  it  reached  the  city. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  stating  in  substance  at  that  time,  or  at  any  other  time, 
in  addition  to  what  you  have  stated  here,  that  Booth  said  that  the  plan  had  been 
conceived  by  him  ;  that  no  other  person  was  in  it  but  himself  and  one  more,  or 
words  to  that  eff(  ct  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  am  positive  I  never  made  that  statement  to  anybody. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  lady  in  this  city  by  the  name  of  Mrs.  llolahan  ? 

A.  I  do  not  personally ;  I  remember  of  having  such  a  lady  in  charge  as  a 
witness,  and  I  think  accompanied  her  to  the  penitentiary  during  the  conspiracy 
trial. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  saying  in  her  presence,  that  when  Booth  was  dying 
he  said,  in  substance,  that  the  plan  was  conceived  by  himself,  and  that  there 
were  only  two  persons  in  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Lyman  S.  Sprague — residence,  Washington — sworn  and  examined. 
By  Assistant  District  Attorney  WiLSO.x  : 

Q.  Where,  and  in  what  capacity,  were  you  engaged  in  the  year  1SG5  ? 

A.  I  was  at  the  Kirkwood  House ;  employed  in  the  office. 

Q.  Examine  this  (handing  witness  a  leaf  of  a  large  book  with  various  names 
written  on  it)  and  state  what  it  is. 

A.  It  is  a  leaf  cut  out  of  the  register  of  the  Kirkwood  House,  April  1-1, 
1865. 

Q.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  name  that  was  entered  there  on  the 
14th. 

A.  George  A.  Atzerodt,  Charles  county. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  person  who  entered  that  name  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  AYliat  room  did  he  have  ? 


324  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Xo.  126. 

Q.  Describe,  if  you  please,  the  relative  position  of  that  room  with  the  one 
occupied  by  the  Vice-President,  Johnson. 

A.  Room  126  is  on  the  third  floor,  in  the  new  part,  over  the  dining 
room  ;  next  to  the  last  room  of  this  new  addition.  President  Johnson's  room 
was  No.  68,  on  the  second  floor,  facing  on  Twelfth  street.  It  is  the  first  room  as 
you  go  up  stairs  fi'om  the  oifice. 

Q.  Was  this  room  No.  126  nearly  over  it  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  very  far  from  it ;  it  is  nearly  125  feet  from  where  President 
Johnson's  room  was  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  means  of  communication  were  there? 

A.  Not  any,  without  going  up  stairs  or  coming  down,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Q.  Did  vou  visit  that  room  on  the  15th  of  April  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  you  found. 

A.  I  went  there  with  detective  John  Lee,  and  he  found  a  revolverunder  a  pil- 
low of  the  bed. 

Q.  Were  you  there  when  any  other  things  were  found  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not.  I  came  down  stairs  before  they  were  found  ;  I  was 
called  down  at  the  office. 

By  Mr.  Bkadlev  : 

Q.  The  room  that  Atzerodt  occupied  was  not  directly  over  Vice-President 
Johnson's  room  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  at  the  other  end  of  the  long  back  building? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Samuel  K.  Chester — residence,  New  York  city — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Assistant  District  Attorney  Wilson  : 

Q.  State  where  you  resided  in  April,  1865,  and  what  was  your  occupation. 

A.  I  resided  in  New  York  city,  and  was  an  actor  at  that  time. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  were  at  that  time  acquainted  with  J.  Wilkes 
Booth. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  When  and  where  did  you  last  see  him? 

A.  The  last  time  I  saw  him  was  on  Friday,  one  week  previous  to  the  assas- 
sination. I  was  with  him  nearly  the  entire  afternoon.  We  separated  at  the 
corner  of  Fourteenth  and  Broadway,  in  New  York  city. 

Q.  Had  you  seen  Booth  a  day  or  two  prior  to  that  f 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  think  I  had.  I  may  have  seen  him,  but  I  do  not  recol- 
lect. 

Q.  Did  you  know  where  he  stopped  ?  and  if  so,  state. 

A.   No,  sir;   I  do  not  know  where  he  stopped. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  how  long  Booth  remained  in  New  York 
at  that  time  1 

A.  He  must  have  gone  away  that  night. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  he  arrived  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  many  days  he  was  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Had  you  any  conversation  with  him  that  day,  or  any  day  previous  ? 

A.  I  had  on  that  day. 

Q.  How  long  before  this  last  time  had  you  seen  him  ? 

A.  I  cannot  now  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  month  of  January  or  February? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  325 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  think  I  saw  liiin  iu  those  two  months. 

Q.  Did  yon  have  any  conversation  with  him  at  this  time,  the  7th  of  April  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  him  in  January,  February,  and  April,  and  held  conversation 
with  him  on  each  of  those  three  occasions  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bkadlkv.  I  now  propose,  jonv  honor,  to  ask  Mr.  Chester  whether  Mr. 
Booth  said  anything  to  him  on  those  several  occasions  about  a  plot  in  regard 
to  the  President. 

The  DiSTUicT  Attorney.     I  object,  sir,  of  course. 

Mr.  I*iERKKi'Oi\T.  Does  the  counsel  think  it  is  a  proper  question  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  propose  to  ask  it  upon  this  ground.  They  have  proved 
very  clearly  the  death  of  Mr.  Booth,  who  they  have  undertaken  to  show  was 
engao:ed  in  a  certain  conspiracy.  I  now  propose  to  show  wliat  the  witness 
testified  to  on  the  trial  before  the  military  corainission  as  to  what  Booth  said  in 
regard  to  that  conspiracy  against  the  President,  what  the  nature  of  the  conspiracy 
was,  and  when  it  was  abandoned. 

Mr.  Wilson.  Upon  cross-examination  ? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  If  the  counsel  proposes  to  show  that  the  witness  testi- 
fied before  the  military  commission,  or  anywhere  else,  to  anything  different 
from  what  he  has  now  testified  to,  we  do  not  object.  We  only  called  this  witness 
at  present  in  regard  to  a  specific  point,  and  that  was  to  prove  Booth  in  New 
York  city  on  a  particular  day.     We   propose  to  connect  that  with  other  things. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  question  is,  whether,  after  they  have  proved  the  death 
of  Booth,  and  seek  to  connect  this  defendant  with  him  in  some  conspiracy,  it 
is  proper  for  us  to  give  evidence  of  what  Booth  said  in  regard  to  that  conspiracy  ; 
what  propositions  he  made  to  this  witness  in  regard  to  that  conspiracy;  what  he 
said  as  to  the  nature  of  it;  and  further,  what  he  said  as  to  its  having  been 
terminated  ;  all  of  which  has  been  drawn  out  on  a  previous  examination  of  the 
witness  before  the  military  commission,  and  is  in  possession  of  the  government, 
and  therefore  no  surprise  to  them. 

Mr.  PiERREi'ONT.  When  we  offer  any  such  proof,  it  will  be  proper  for  you 
to  show  what  you  propose. 

The  Court.  The  question  is  not  a  proper  one  on  cross-examination,  nothing 
having  been  said  by  the   witness   on  the  subject  in  his   examination  in  chief. 

JNIr.  Bradlev.  1  am  satisfied. 

The  Court.  It  is  not  responsive  at  all  to  anything  elicitedin  the  directexamina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Bradley  The  court  will  notice  that  the  gentlemen  have  confined  their 
examination  to  a  single  fact,  or  rather  they  have  brought  out  but  one  fact,  to 
wit,  Mr.  Chester's  having  been  in  company  with  Booth  on  the  7th  of  April, 
and  there  stop. 

^Ir.  I'lERKEi'ONT.  And  propose  to  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  propese  to  ask  the  witness  one  or  two  other  questions. 

Q.  You  were  examined  on  the  trial  before  the  military  commission] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  you  testified  to  there  ? 

A.  I  think  T  do. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  state  whether  you  testified  to  anything  about  the  alleged 
conspiracy,  and  what  Booth  said  to  you. 

31i-.  I'lERREPONT.  Don't  make  any  answer  to  that  question. 

The  CcJi'RT.   Is  it  in  contradiction  of  anything  he  said  here  to-day? 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir;  I  wish  to  test  his  memory  as  to  whether  he 
recollects  it  or  not. 

The  Court.  That  won't  do. 


326  TKIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Merrick  dosired  to  have  an  exception  reserved  to  this;  as  also  to  the  pre- 
vious rulinj;;  of  the  court  in  regard  to  this  witness. 

The  court  at  this  point  took  a  recess  until  Wednesday  morning  at  10  o'clock 

Wednesday,  June  26,  1S67. 

The  court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

The  District  Attorney  called  attention  to  the  following,  which  appeared 
in  the  public  prints  as  having  taken  place  before  the  court  took  its  recess  yes- 
terday afternoon  : 

"The  court  asked  if  there  were  any  other  witnesses  to  put  on  the  stand. 

"Mr.  Bradley.  There  are  half  a  dozen  out  there  (pointing  to  the  witnesses' 
room)  in  the  penitentiary,  and  have  been  all  the  morning. 

"Mr.  Merrick.  Not  in  the  penitentiary  now,  but  they  will  be." 

The  District  Attorney  said  he  heard  the  remark  of  Mr.  Bradley,  but  con- 
sidered it  a  merel}'  playful  one,  and  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  reply  to.  He 
did  not  hear  the  remark  of  Mr,  Merrick.  He  admitted  that  the  utmost  license 
in  reflecting  upon  the  character  of  witnesses  was  proper  in  the  summing  up  ar- 
guments, but  such  remarks  should  not  be  tolerated  in  the  court,  from  counsel  on 
either  side,  during  the  examination. 

The  Court  said  he  did  not  hear  the  remark  of  Mr.  ]V|errick,  if  it  was  made. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  he  made  the  remark,  and  made  it  in  the  same  playful  man- 
ner in  which  Mr.  Bradley  made  his ;  but  since  it  had  assumed  a  serious  aspect 
he  would  take  it  in  a  serious  aspect,  and  hoped  in  the  course  of  Immau  events 
to  make  the  remark  good. 

'  The  Court  said  it  was  not  proper  for  counsel  to  reflect  upon  the  character  of 
witnesses  by  any  side  bar  remarks.  Their  character  would  be  open  for  discus- 
sion at  a  proper  time,  and  in  a  proper  way. 

James  Johnson  Gifford,  carpenter — residence,  Baltimore — sworn  and  ex- 
amined. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Did  you  formerly  reside  in  this  city  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  here  in  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  engaged  about  Ford's  theatre  about  that  time  ? 

A.  I  was  in  Mr.  Ford's  employ  about  that  time. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  Avere  you  there  employed  1 

A.  I  was  a  builder  and  carpenter  at  that  place  at  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  box  the  President  occupied  on  the  night  of  the  14th 
of  April  ? 

A.  The  left-hand  side  of  the  stage,  second  tier — right-hand  side  from  the 
audience. 

Q.  State  if  your  attention  had  been  directed  to  that  1)ox  during  the  day;  and 
if  so,  what  you  saw  that  particularly  attracted  your  attention. 

A.  Between  eleven  and  twelve  o'clock  I  was  notified  that  the  President  would 
be  there,  and  to  take  the  partition  out  of  the  box.  There  were  two  boxes,  but 
when  the  President  came  it  was  always  made  into  one  box.  There  was  a  small 
inch  partition  that  went  up  between  the  two  boxes,  about  seven  feet  high.  That 
was  ordered  to  be  taken  out  when  large  parties  came,  and  was  ordered  to  be 
taken  out  when  the  President  was  to  be  there. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Did  it  go  up  to  the  ceiling  of  the  gallery  over  it  ? 

A.  It  was  a  second  tier  box,  in  the  line  of  what  was  called  the  dress  circle. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  327 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  How  was  it  furni(>hed — do  you  recollect  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  it  was  furnished  on  that  occasion;  T  did  not  go  into  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  chairs  and  sofa  being  brought  there  1 

A.  I  recollect  that  chairs  were  always  in  it. 

Q.  How  was  it  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  On  great  occasions  they  decorated  it  off. 

Q.  How  was  it  on  that  occasion  1 

A.  It  was  decorated  on  that  occas-ion. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  the  chair  in  the  President's  box  on  that  occasion,  be- 
fore 1    If  so,  when  was  the  last  time  you  saw  it  1 

A.  The  last  time  I  saw  the  chair  in  which  the  President  sat  on  that  occasion, 
it  was  in  James  11.  Ford's  and  Harry  Ford's  room. 

Q.   Were  they  the  proprietors  1 

A.  No,  sir;  brothers  of  the  propi'ietor. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  Monday  morning  after  the  assassination  ;  state 
if  you  went  to  the  theatre  and  made  an  examination  of  the  box ;  and  if  so,  state 
in  whose  company  you  went,  and  the  result  of  your  examination. 

A.  I  did  not  leave  the  theatre  from  the  time  of  the  assassination.  On  Sunday 
Mr.  Maddox  and  Mr.  Spangler  came  there,  and  I  asked  them  to  stay  there. 
During  my  absence  Judge  Olin  and  Miss  Harris  called  there. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  You  need  not  slate  what  took  place  then. 

Q.  State  whether  you  examined  the  box  yourself. 

A.  I  did  not  on  Sunday  afternoon. 

Q.  Did  you  make  an  examination  at  any  time  to  ascertain  how  the  door  was 
fastened  't 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  while  the  Secretary  of  War  was  there  I  explained  it  to  him. 
There  was  a  hole  cut  in  the  plastering  of  the  wall ;  from  that  they  had  a  bar 
that  slipped  against  the  door,  and  the  door  being  at  an  angle,  was  secure  from 
any  rusliing  in  or  attempt  to  force  it  in;  but  if  they  shook  the  door  the  bar  would 
at  once  fall  out.  There  was  a  hole  in  the  door  close  to  the  President's  box,  that 
I  thought  at  first  was  where  a  pistol  was  fired,  but  on  close  examination  I  found 
it  was  cut  with  a  left-hand  auger  bit. 

Q.  Describe  where  that  cut  was. 

A.  It  was  right  in  the  corner  of  the  panel,  by  the  moulding.  I  thought,  at 
first,  it  was  shot  through  by  a  pistol. 

Q.  How  did  you  examine  it  ? 

A.  By  looking  at  it;  the  only  way  I  know. 

Q.  Go  on  with  your  statement. 

A.  That  is  all  1  have  to  say. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  would  have  been  observed  easily  by  persons  whose  atten- 
tion had  not  been  called  to  it] 

A.  No,  sir;  you  might  have  passed  it  a  dozen  times,  you  might  have  passed 
it  a  year  and  not  have  taken  notice  of  it. 

Q.  How  large  was  the  hole  1 

A.  It  was  about  a  quarter  of  an  inch  in  diameter. 

Q.  When  did  it  appear  that  this  hole  had  been  made]  Did  it  seem  to  be 
fresh  cut? 

A.  It  appeare]  to  be  tolerably  fresh. 

Q.  You  had  never  observed  it  before? 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  what  it  had  been  made  by? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  1  could  tell  by  the  way  it  was  cut;  it  was  cut  by  a  bit  that 
turned  left-handed. 

Q.  AVhat  sort  of  an  instrument? 

A.  It  was  cut  by  a  gimlet.     1  understood  the  government  had  the  gimlet  that 


328  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

cut  it.  The  hole  liad  been  tampered  with  by  cutting  it,  so  as  to  make  it  appear 
larger  on  the  outside  of  the  box. 

Q.  How  long  would  it  require  to  make  it? 

A.  A  man  could  put  it  there  in  half  a  minute.  All  he  had  to  do  was  to  turn 
the  bit  a  few  times  round.  The  stuff  was  not  more  than  three-eighths  thick. 
Two  or  three  turns  would  take  the  gimlet  through  it.  It  was  at  the  rising  of 
the  panel,  right  in  the  corner  where  the  moulding  of  the  panel  mitres. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Step  to  that  do(jr  and  explain  to  the  jury  whei'e,  corres- 
ponding in  the  door,  it  was. 

(Witness  explained.) 

Q.  How  high  was  it  from  the  floor? 

A.  1  judge  about  4  feet  five  or  six  inches,  so  that  a  man  could  look  through. 

By  Mr.  Wilson: 

Q.  Was  it  so  that  any  person  looking  through  it  could  easily  see  the  whole 
interior  of  the  box? 

A.  No,  sir;  he  could  see  the  left-hand  side  of  the  box;  he  could  not  see  over 
the  box.     It  was  in  a  direct  line  from  where  the  President  sat. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  mean  by  that  that  the  President  would  be  in  full  view 
from  that  hole? 

A.  He  could  see  the  back  part  of  the  President's  head  from  where  that  hole 
was  bored. 

By  Ml-.  Wilson  : 

Q.  I  wish  you  would  describe  a  little  more  particularly  that  bar.  State 
whether  it  was  on  the  inside? 

A.  It  was  on  the  inside.  It  was  a  piece  of  about  an  inch  or  f  stuff.  I  saw 
it  down  there  at  the  arsenal.  One  end  had  been  cut  or  bevelled,  with  two  or 
three  sprigs  in  it.     The  other  end  to  butt  against  the  wall, 

Q.  Was  there  a  place  in  the  wall  which  it  fit  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  was  it  made  ? 

A.  Cut  with  a  knife  and  scraped  out. 

Q.  How  long  had  it  been  made  apparently?  and  how  long  would  it  take  to 
make  such  a  place? 

A.  A  person  very  anxious  abont  it  would  make  it  in  three,  four,  or  five  minutes, 
and  perhaps  could  fit  the  bar  and  all  in  ten  minutes'  time. 

Q.  W^as  the  dust  from  the  hole  on  the  floor? 

A.  That  1  could  not  say.  The  box  had  been  swept  out;  it  was  cleaned  out 
every  day,  and  of  course  I  did  not  notice.  There  was  no  dust  at  the  time  I 
made  the  examination. 

Q.  How  was  the  bar  fitted  at  the  other  end? 

A.  One  end  was  square.  The  other  end  was  cut  and  bevelled,  and  there 
were  two  or  three  sprigs  in  it,  about  two  inch  sprigs. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  nails  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  these  sprigs  for;  to  rest  against  the  door? 

A.  I  suppose  the  man  intended  them  to  rest  against  the  door  to  keep  the  bar 
from  slipping  down;  there  was  nothing  else  to  keep  it;  the  least  shake  would 
have  thrown  it  out,  but  a  hard  push  would  make  it  tighter. 

Q.   When  did  you  see  thai  bar  hist  ^ 

A.  I  saw  it  down  at  the  arsenal  at  the  trial  before  the  military  commission  ; 
the  first  and  only  time  that  I  saw  it,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Examine  that  (exhibiting  a  wooden  bar)  and  see  if  that  is  the  bar  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  that  is  the  bar. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  329 

'S\v.  WiLSox.  Stop  to  the  door  and  explain  to  the  jury  how  the  bar  fitted. 
(Witness  exphiined.) 
Q.  Are  the  nails  still  in  the  bar? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  there  are  a  couple  of  sprigs. 
Q.  What  is  the  small  piece  of  wood  tied  to  the  bar  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  what  it  is  ;  the  information  I  had  was  that  it  had  been  cut 
oflF. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Do  you  know  Edward  Spangler? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  employed  about  the  theatre? 

(Question  objected  to  by  assistant  district  attorney  as  not  in  response  to 
anything  brought  out  in  direct  examination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  is  connected  with  the  matter  in  issue  and  Spangler's  name 
was  mentioned  on  the  direct  examination. 

The  Cdl'RT  ruled  that  the  question  might  be  answered.) 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  was  there. 

Q.  What  was  his  duty  about  the  theatre  ? 

A.  He  was  a  scene  shifter.     His  place  was  on  one  side  of  the  stage. 

Q.  State  whether  he  was  out  in  front  of  the  theatre  during  the  third  act  that 
night. 

A.  Xo,  sir;   I  did  not  see  him  in  front  of  the  theatre, 

Q.  Could  he  have  been  absent  from  the  stage  for  any  time  without  deranging 
the  play  1 

A.  No,  sir,  he  could  not,  without  deranging  the  stage  machinery. 

George  W.  Bunker  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  are  you  residing  at  this  time? 

A.  I  am  at  this  time  residing  at  the  Clarendon  Hotel,  opposite  the  National, 
in  this  city. 

Q.  Were  you  employed  at  the  National  Hotel  in  1865  ;  and  if  so,  in  what 
capacity  ? 

A.  1  was  employed  in  the  capacity  of  clerk,  generally  known  as  room  clerk. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  from  memory,  or  by  referring  to  the  register,  when  you  saw 
him  at  the  National  Hotel  last .' 

A.  T  last  saw  him  about  seven  o'clock  of  the  evening  of  the  assassination,  when, 
he  passed  out  of  the  hotel  for  the  last  time.     He  spoke  ro  me  as  he  went  otf. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  it  to  be  noted  that  this  testimony  was  objected  to. 

Q.  Examine  the  register  now  shown  you,  and  state  what  it  is. 

A.  This  is  the  hotel  register  of  the  National  Hotel  of  this  city,  for  1864  and' 
1865. 

Mr.  Bradley  stated  that  if  the  witness  had  a  memorandxim  made  by  him  of 
the  different  entries  of  Booth's  name,  he  was  willing,  to  save  time,  that  he  should 
take  that  and  swear  to  it. 

Witness.  There  would  be  one  great  difficulty  in  referring  to  this  book.  I 
observe  that  the  name  of  Booth  has  been  cut  from  the  book  in  nearly  every 
instance  where  it  occurred — I  presume  for  the  autograph. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Look  at  this   memorandum  and   state  whether  it  is  one  made  by  you  at 
Ihe  time  of  the  trial  by  the  military  commission  1 
A.  It  is  a  memorandum  we  made  on  that  trial. 
22 


330  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Is  it  in  your  handwriting  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  think  it  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Colonel  Wells,  of  the  War 
Department.     This  is  my  handwriting  across  the  top.     This  is  correct. 

By  Mr.  PiEKREPONT  : 

Q.  I  wish  you  to  refer  to  the  memorandum  merely  to  refresh  your  memory,  and 
state  when  Booth  was  at  your  hotel  during  the  latter  part  of  1864,  up  to  the 
time  of  his  death. 

A.  November  9,  1864,  J.  Wilkes  Booth  arrived  at  the  National  Hotel,  and 
occupied  room  20.     He  left  by  the  early  train  on  the  morning  of  November  11. 

Q.  You  know,  in  some  way,  that  fact  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  by  a  book  we  kept  at  the  hotel,  called  the  departure  book.  He 
returned  again  November  15,  and  left  on  the  16th. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  ? 

A.  He  arrived  in  the  evening,  perhaps  at  6  or  7  o'clock,  and  left  on  the  16th. 
It  is  impossible  to  tell  from  this  book  what  hour  in  the  day  he  left.  I  do  not 
know  that  there  is  any  way  of  ascertaining.  His  next  arrival  was  December 
12,  and  he  next  left  December  17,  on  the  morning  train.  His  next  arrival  was 
December  22,  in  the  early  part  of  the  evening,  and  he  left  again  on  the  24th. 
His  next  arrival  was  December  31,  and  he  left  again  January  10,  1865.  He 
next  arrived  on  the  12th  of  January,  and  left  January  28.  He  next  arrived 
February  22.  There  is  a  memorandum,  which  is  correct,  that  Mr.  Merrick, 
clerk  at  the  hotel,  informs  me  that  during  his  stay  on  this  occasion  Booth 
made  several  trips  into  Maryland. 

Mr.  Bradley.  No  matter  about  that ;  you  need  not  read  from  that  paper. 
It  is  not  in  your  handwriting. 

WiTiXESS.  All  right.     He  did, however,  leave  several  times,  and  return  again. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  room  did  he  occupy  when  he  was  at  the  hotel  on  the  22d  of  Feb- 
ruary 1 

A.  I  find  in  this  instance  that  his  name  has  not  been  cut  from  the  register, 
and  that  he  came  in  the  early  part  of  the  evening,  with  P.  H.  Went  worth  and 
John  McCullough,  and  occupied  room  No.  231. 

Q.  Did  they  arrive  together  and  register  at  the  same  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  and  occupied  this  large  room  together. 

Q.  When  did  he  next  leave  ? 

A.  February  28,  and  returned  jMarch  1. 

Q.   Can  you  state  whether  his  account  commenced  from  March  1  ? 

A.  I  do  not  find  his  name  from  March  1  to  March  4. 

Q.  Did  he  not  have  an  account  from  March  1  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  from  this  book. 

Q.  From  what  book  did  you  get  it  on  the  other  trial  ? 

A.  From  the  departure  book  and  the  cash  book. 

Q.  State  when  you  next  find  his  name. 

A.  I  find  that  his  name  has  been  cut  from  the  register  of  March  25. 

Q.  Do  you  find  that  he  was  called  at  8  o'clock  on  the  1st,  2d,  or  3d  of  March; 
and  if  not,  what  book  would  show  that  1 

A.  The  call  book  would  show  that. 

Q.  On  the  21st  of  March  what  do  you  find  ? 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  If  he  paid  850  on  that  day,  and  left  at  7.30,  where  would  it  appear  1 

A.  It  would  be  on  the  cash  book  and  transferred  to  the  ledger. 

Q.  On  the  25th  of  March  what  do  you  find? 

A.  That  his  name  has  been  cut  from  the  register. 

Q.  What  room  had  he  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  33  i 

A.  No.  231,  the  same  one  lie  had  been  occupyiug. 

Q.  When  (lid  lie  leave  1 

A.  April  1,  the  memorandum  says. 

Q.  Now  turn  to  April  8  and  see  what  you  find  for  the  afternoon  train. 

A.  April  S  I  find  his  name  has  been  cut  again  from  the  register;  that  he 
occupied  room  22S. 

Q.  From  April  8  what  happened  until  the  assassination  1 

A.  From  April  8  to  April  14,  I  do  not  think  he  was  absent  from  the  house; 
I  have  no  recollection  that  he  was. 

Henry  Warren  Smith,  captain,  assistant  adjutant  general,  and  brevet 
lieutenant  colonel,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPOMT: 

Q.  Where  are  you  stationed  ? 

A.  At  Vick^bnrg,  Mississippi. 

Q.  To  what  army  corps  or  command  do  you  belong? 

A.  1  am  on  duty  in  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  assistant  adjutant  general. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  city  of  Washington  at  the  time  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  assassination  did  you  remain  here  ? 

A.  Eighteen  months  nearly. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  were  one  of  the  officers  who  went  to  Mrs. 
Surratt's  after  the  assassination  1 

A.  I  had  command  of  the  party. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  day  of  the  week  and  on  what  day  of  the  month  you  made 
the  arrest. 

A.  It  was  on  Monday,  the  17th  day  of  April. 

Q.  Then  it  was  the  next  Monday  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Three  days  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  Did  you  arrest  Payne  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  house  ? 

A.  At  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  house. 

Q.  Describe  to  the  jury  your  approach  to  the  house,  what  occurred,  who  you 
saw,  and  give  a  description  of  the  arrest  of  Payne  and  Mrs.  Surratt. 

A.  I  received  orders  from  General  Augur  to  go  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  and 
arrest  her  and  any  suspicious  personages  I  might  find  there.  I  had  a  party  of 
three  men  detailed  to  go  with  me. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  ? 

A.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Wermerskirch,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Rosch,  and 
Eli  Dcvoe.  We  went  down  H  street  till  we  got  between  Fifth  and  Sixth,  or 
Sixth  and  Seventh,  I  forget  which,  to  .'^41  H  street.  On  approaching  the  house 
I  posted  the  men ;  I  sent  one  man  into  the  back  yard,  directing  him  not  to 
allow  any  one  to  pass  out;  placed  one  at  the  basement  door,  and  took  one  up 
the  steps. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  your  man  into  the  back  yard  ] 

A.  There  was  a  gate  entrance  on  the  side  of  the  house,  on  the  right-hand  side 
going  down. 

Q.  Describe  the  front  entrance  to  the  house. 

A.  It  was  by  high  door  steps  from  the  sti*eet. 

Q.  AVas  the  outside  entrance  into  the  basement  or  the  second  story  ? 

A.  There  Mas  an  entrance  both  to  the  basement  and  the  second  story. 

Q.  Into  which  did  the  steps  lead  ? 

A.  The  steps  led  into  the  second  story. 

Q.  Which  did  you  enter  1 

A.  I  entered  by  the  steps,  the  second  story,  leaving  a  man  outside  to  prevent 
any  escape  that  way. 

Q.  Describe  what  you  saw  after  you  got  up  the  steps. 


332  TRIAL    OF    JOTIX    H     SURRATT. 

A.  Before  ringing  the  bell,  I  leaned  over  and  looked  through  the  Llinds  into 
the  parlor  and  discovered  four  females  sitting  close  together,  evidently  in  close 
conversation.  From  what  occurred,  I  should  judge  they  were  anxiously  ex- 
pecting some  one.  They  were  turning  and  listening,  from  time  to  time,  as  if 
waiting  for  somebody  to  come.  I  then  rang  the  bell ;  somebody  carae  to  the 
window  and  whispered,  "  Is  that  you  Kirby  ]" 

Q.  Tell  how  ? 

A.  They  whispered  in  a  low  voice,  "  Is  that  you,  Kirby  ?"  I  said,  "  No,  it  is 
not  Kirby,  but  it  is  all  right ;  let  me  in."  She  said,  "  All  right,"  and  opened  the 
door.  I  stepped  in  and  said,  "  Is  this  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  ?"  She  said,  "  Yes." 
I  said,  "  Are  you  Mrs.  Surratt  ?"  She  said,  "  I  am  the  widow  of  John  H.  Sur- 
ratt."  I  said,  "  And  the  mother  of  John  H.  Surratt,  jr.  V  She  said,  "  Yes." 
I  then  said,  "  ]\[adam,  I  have  come  to  arrest  you  and  all  in  your  house,  and 
take  you  down  to  General  Augur's  headquarters  for  examination.  Be  kind 
enough  to  step  in."  She  stepped  into  the  parlor.  There  were  three  parties 
there  ;  one  was  lying  on  the  sofa.  Said  I,  "  Who  are  these  ladies  ?"  She  said, 
"  That  is  Anna  Surratt,  that  is  Olivia  Jenkins,  and  that  Honora  Fitzpatrick." 
I  said,  "  Ladies,  you  will  have  to  get  ready  as  soon  as  possible  and  go  with  me 
down  to  General  Augur's  for  examination.  AVhereupon  Miss  Surratt  com- 
menced wringing  her  hands,  and  said,  "  Oh,  mother,  to  think  of  being  taken 
down  there  for  such  a  crime."  Mrs.  Surratt  stepped  to  her,  put  her  arms  around 
her  neck  and  whispered  something  in  her  ear  and  she  became  quiet.  1  said  to 
her  that  I  had  sent  for  a  carriage,  and  to  please  get  ready  as  soon  as  possible, 
that  I  would  send  somebody  with  them  down  to  headqi;arters. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  What  time  was  that  ? 

A.  As  nearly  as  I  can  state,  a  quarter  after  10.  Mrs.  Surratt  said,  "  I  will 
go  up  stairs  and  get  the  ladies'  things."  I  said,  "  I  advise  you  to  get  warm 
wrappings,  as  it  is  a  damp,  drizzly  night."  She  said,  "  I  will  go  right  up  stairs." 
I  said,  "  Excuse  me,  madam  this  house  is  suspected  ;  I  will  accompany  you  up 
stairs."  I  told  Devoe  to  remain  in  the  room  and  see  that  no  papers  were  de- 
stroyed, and  that  no  communication  passed  between  the  ladies.  1  went  up  stairs 
with  Mrs.  Surratt.  She  obtained  clothing  for  the  ladies  to  go  to  headquarters.  In 
the  mean  time  two  other  detectives  had  reported — one  by  the  name  of  Morgan, 
and  another  by  the  name  of  Samson.  I  sent  Samson  down  stairs  to  take  charge 
of  the  servants,  and  waited  for  the  carriage.  Mrs.  Surratt  said  to  me,  "  By  your 
leave,  sir,  I  would  like  to  kneel  down  and  say  my  prayers,  to  ask  the  blessing 
of  God  upon  me,  as  I  do  upon  all  my  actions."  I  told  her,  certainly  ;  I  never 
interfered  with  any  such  purpose.  She  knelt  down  in  the  parlor  and  prayed. 
In  the  mean  time  I  heard  steps  coming  up  the  front  steps.  Wermerskirch  and 
Morgan  were  in  the  upper  part  of  the  house  with  me.  I  told  them  to  go  be- 
hind the  door,  and  that  when  they  rung  or  knocked  to  open  the  door  and  let 
them  step  in,  whoever  it  was,  and  I  would  meet  them  in  the  hall,  I  thinking  at 
the  time  it  was  Kirby  that  I  Avas  going  to  trap.  I  stepped  into  the  parlor,  and 
the  door-bell  rung.  The  door  opened.  I  stepped  out  into  the  hall,  and  found 
myself  face  to  face  with  Payne.  Payne  was  standing  on  the  threshold  of  the 
door  with  a  pickaxe  over  his  shoulder.  I  stepped  out  and  met  him.  He  said, 
"  I  guess  I  have  mistaken  the  house."  I  said,  "  You  have  not."  He  said,  "  Is 
this  Mrs.  Surratt's  house?"  I  said,  "  Yea."  He  seemed  to  hesitate.  I  drew 
my  revolver  and  cocked  it,  and  said,  ••  Step  in."  He  stepped  in  immediately. 
I  said,  lay  down  that  pickaxe.  Ho  laid  it  down,  or  put  it  in  the  corner.  I  took 
him  to  the  back  part  of  the  hall,  and  set  two  men  to  stand  guard  over  him.  We 
then  commenced  questioning  him  and  examining  him.  I  asked  him  where  he 
had  been.  He  said  he  had  been  working  on  the  railroad  and  canal ;  that  he 
had  been  working  in  different  parts  of  the  city.     I  ask°d  him  how  long  he  had 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT.  333 

been  here.  He  said  a  week  or  ten  clays.  I  asked  him  if  he  had  any  papers 
■with  him.  lie  said  he  had  a  pass,  which  he  took  out  and  handed  to  one  of  the 
officers,  who  passed  it  to  me.  I  hioked  at  it,  and  found  ir  to  be  an  oath  of  am- 
nesty, or  an  oath  in  which  he  bound  himself  not  to  go  south  of  the  Potomac,  I 
think. 

j\Ir.  BnADLBV.  Whove  is  that  paper? 

WiT\Ks<.  I  do  not  know. 

My.  Bradlev.  You  need  not  say  anythiuLT  more  about  the  paper. 

"\Vn\\F>s.  I  then  told  him  he  was  so  suspicious  a  personage  that  I  felt  bound 
to  arrest  him,  and  send  liim  down  to  General  Augur's  headquarters.  I  sent  for 
a  carriage  immediately.  I  left  him  in  charge  of  two  men,  and  went  down  stairs 
to  search  the  premises.    I  saAV  the  servants  there,  and  from  them  I  learned 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  need  not  state  what  you  learned  from  the  servants. 

jNIr.  PiERKEPONT.  What  was  said  by  the  servants  or  anybody  else  in  presence 
of  Payne  or  Mrs.  Surratt  is  evidence. 

Witness.  There  was  nothing  said  by  the  servants  in  presence  of  any  one, 
except  the  detective  and  myself.  I  asked  Payne  what  he  had  been  doing.  He 
said  he  was  a  laboring  man.  I  asked  him  where  he  lived.  He  said  he  could 
not  tell.  I  asked  him  whether  it  was  east,  west,  north,  or  south.  He  said  he 
could  not  tell  me  where  he  lived.  1  asked  him  what  he  came  to  Mrs.  Surratt's 
for  that  hour  of  the  night.  It  was  then  verging  towards  11  o'clock.  He 
said  he  came  to  get  instructions  about  digging  a  ditch  in  the  back  yard.  I 
asked  him  what  he  came  at  that  hour  for  to  get  instructions  about  digging  a 
ditch.  He  said  he  didn't  know;  he  was  passing  along.  I  asked  him  when  he 
met  Mrs.  f^unatt.  He  said  he  met  her  this  morning,  and  agreed  to  dig  a  ditch 
for  her,  and  that  he  wanted  instructions  to  go  to  work  the  next  morning.  I 
tlien  stepped  to  the  parlor  door,  and  said,  "  Mrs.  Surratt,  will  you  be  kind  enough 
to  step  here  a  minute?"'  Said  I,  "Do  you  know  this  man?  Did  you  hire  him 
to  dig  a  ditch  for  you?"  She  raised  both  her  hands,  and  said,  "Before  God 
I  do  not  know  this  man ;  I  have  never  seen  him ;  I  did  not  hire  him  to  dig  a 
ditch."  Shortly  after  that,  a  carriage  reported,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  three 
ladies  were  sent  to  General  Augur's  headquarters.  A  little  while  after,  Payne 
also  was  sent  there  in  another  carriage.  Both  carriages  went  in  charge  of 
detectives. 

Q.  Who  did  you  find  in  the  house  ? 

A.  We  found  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Surratt,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  IMiss  Jenkins,  a 
little  colored  girl  asleep  on  the  floor  in  the  back  room.  We  found  Susan  Ann 
Jackson,  or  a  colored  woman  who  said  her  name  was  Susan,  and  a  man  down 
stairs  who,  she  said,  was  her  husband. 

Q.  Woi\ld  you  know  this  Susan  if  you  were  to  see  her? 

A.  I  think  I  would. 

Q.  Was  she  a  full-grown  person? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  this  man  ? 

A.  I  did  a  few  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  Susan  any  questions  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  1  asked  her  a  number  of  questions. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  her  anything  about  John  Surratt  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  INIr.  Jiradley. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  had  the  right  to  ask  whether  the  witness  had  held 
any  conversation ;  he  had  not  asked  what  that  conversation  Avas. 

The  court  decided  the  question  could  be  put  in  that  shape.) 

Q.  Did  you  question  her  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  question  all  the  others  ? 

A.  I  questioned  them  all. 


Q 


34  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 


Q.  Did  you  make  a  written  report  of  your  examination  at  that  house  at  the 
time  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  immaterial. 

Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Have  you  a  distinct  memory  of  what  occurred  at  the  time  1 

A.  I  have. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  improper  on  examination  in  chief. 

The  Court  said  it  was  proper  to  ask  a  man  whether  his  memory  is  distinct 
about  what  he  says. 

Witness.  My  memory  is  distinct  even  to  the  very  words. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  were  examined  before  the  military  commission  that  tried  the  con- 
spirators ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  give  the  same  statement  you  have  given  here  ? 

A.  Very  nearly  the  same. 

Q.  I  ask  you  in  what  it  differs. 

A.  It  differs  in  regard  to  the  testimony  about  Miss  Surratt. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  particular  1 

A.  That  is,  as  near  as  I  can  remember, 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  the  commission  anything  about  looking  into  the  parlor 
windows,  seeing  the  ladies  sitting  there,  and  this  whispering  about  Kirby,  or 
anything  of  that  kind? 

A.  I  believe  I  did ;  I  do  not  remember,  not  having  reviewed  my  testimony 
particularly.     I  know  in  the  statement  I  made  in  my  written  report,  I  did. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  that ;  I  am  asking  you  about  your  examination 
in  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  1 

A.  I  must  say  I  cannot  remember  exactly  what  did  occur  in  the  trial  before 
the  military  commission. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  having  stated  there  that  you  looked  into  the  window 
and  saw  four  ladies  engaged  in  conversation,  looking  up  and  listening,  and  of 
one  of  them  coming  to  the  window  and  whispering,  "  Is  tliat  you,  Kirby  ?" 

A.  I  could  not  swear  that  I  did  or  did  not  give  that  testimony.  . 

Q.  Did  you  state  anything  before  that  commission  about  Mrs.  Surratt  asking 
for  time  to  kneel  down  and  pray  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not. 

Q.  Nor  in  regard  to  the  incident  between  Mrs.  Surratt  and  her  daughter,  in 
which  Miss  Surratt  made  the  exclamation  you  have  stated  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  "Will  you  describe  to  the  jury  in  what  manner  Payne  was  dress  .'d  ? 

A.  Payne  was  dressed  in  a  gray  coat,  with  a  gray  vest,  black  pantaloons. 
His  boots  were  rather  fine,  and  if  I  remember  right  had  red  tops  to  the  legs. 
The  pantaloons  were  tucked  into  the  top  of  one  of  his  boots,  and  the  other  leg 
was  hanging  round  his  feet.  He  had  on  his  head  a  woollen  sleeve,  appearing 
like  a  night-cap.  It  turned  out  to  be  a  woollen  sleeve,  which  he  had  pulled 
down  over  his  head,  letting  the  end  hang  down  like  a  tassel. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  light  in  that  passage  ? 

A.  It  was  about  half  head,  I  should  judge,  of  gas  ;  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  in  your  testimony  before  the  military  comuiission,  in 
answer  to  the  question  whether  you  knew  a  certain  coat,  saying  "  I  am  certain 
that  this  is  the  coat.  I  remember  it  by  its  color  and  general  look,  as  near  as  I 
could  judge  by  the  light  that  was  in  the  hall  at  the  time  ? " 

A.  The  light  was  not  on  full  head  at  the  time ;  it  was  about  half  head  on. 

Q.  How  near  was  Mrs.  Surratt  to  you  when  you  asked  her  if  she  knew  that 
man  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  335 

A.  I  should  judge  about  four  or  five  feet. 

Q.  Did  she  come  out  of  a  strongly  lighted  room,  or  not  1 

A.  No,  sir.     In  the  whole  house  the  gas  had   been  slightly  turned  down. 
There  was  a  rather  dim  light  in  the  parlor  also. 

Q.  What  did  Payne  reply  when  she  said  she  did  not  know  him  ? 

A.  He  replied  nothing  to  her. 

Q.  Were  his  pants  and  dress  fresh  or  soiled  ? 

A.  His  dress  was  a  great  deal  soiled.  It  was  right  muddy  round  the  lower 
part  of  his  person. 

Q.  Was  his  coat  worn  or  in  good  condition  1 

A.  His  coat  was  at  that  time  a  little  muddy;  otherwise  it  was  in  good  condi- 
tion, and  appeared  to  be  rather  new. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  buttons  ? 

A.  The  buttons  Avere  gutta-percha,  stone  color;  that  was  what  I  recognized 
the  coat  particularly  by. 

Q.  Could  you  not  by  the  buttons,  and  button-holes,  tell  whether  it  was  nearly 
new  or  not 't 

A.  Yes,  sir  :  but  I  did  not  notice  whether  it  was  new  or  not,  more  than  that  it 
was  a  good-looking  coat. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  to  the  jury  Avith  more  certainty  what  color  the  coat 
was  ? 

A.  The  coat  was  gray ;  such  as  is  called  confederate  gray. 

Q.  Describe  to  the  jury  in  what  way  the  sleeve  you  have  mentioned  was  put 
on  his  head. 

A.  It  was  pulled  like  a  night-cap  closely  on,  the  knit  Avrist  hanging  down 
the  side  to  represent  a  tassel. 

Q.  How  far  Avas  it  pulled  down  on  his  head  or  face  ? 

A.  It  was  pulled  down  on  his  forehead. 

Q.  What  Avas  the  color  of  it  ] 

A.  Gray. 

Q.  Was  it  soiled,  or  not? 

A.  It  Avas  considerably  Avorn,  and  did  not  look  very  clean.  You  could  not  tell 
whether  it  Avas  soiled  or  not  on  account  of  the  color. 

Q.  Describe,  if  you  please,  the  relative  position  of  these  parties,  Mrs.  Surratt 
and  Payne,  and  the  position  of  the  gas-light  in  the  passage. 

A.  The  parlor  door  was,  I  should  judge,  about  eight  feet  from  the  front  door. 
Right  opposite  the  parlor  door  was  the  gas  fixture.  Payne  Avas  just  under  the 
gas  fixture,  in  the  chair. 

Q.  Against  the  Avail  ] 

A.  Close  to  the  Avail. 

Q.  The  breadth  of  the  passage  between  him  and  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  stepped  out  of  the  parlor  door.  Payne  rose,  and  I  asked  her, 
"Do  you  recognize  this  man  ?"     The  hall  is  a  narrow  hall. 

Q.  He  rose  directly  up  from  the  chair  under  the  gas-light  ? 

A.  He  rose  up  from  the  chair,  and  Avas  not  exactly  under  the  gas-light,  but 
nearly  so. 

Q.  So  that  the  gas-light  shone  upon  the  back  of  his  head? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  gas-light  was  shining  upon  his  face,  and  also  the  light  of  the 
parlor. 

Q.  The  gas-light  shone  on  his  face  in  that  position  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  came  doAvn  at  an  angle. 

Q.  Was  it  nearer  the  parlor  door  than  the  steps,  as  you  go  up  stairs  ? 

A.  It  Avas  near  the  centre  of  the  hall,  nearly  opposite  the  parlor  door. 

By  Mr.  ]\Ierrick  : 

Q.  You  say  that  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  and  Miss 
Surratt  were  in  the  parlor  Avhen  you  went  in.     Where  was  Miss.  Surratt  ? 


336  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

A.  She  was  on  the  sofa. 

Q.  Where  was  Miss  Jenkins  ? 

A.  In  a  chair  near  the  head  of  the  sofa.  I  would  not  venture  to  say  whether 
she  was  closer  to  her  than  Miss  Fitzpatrick.  I  paid  very  little  attention,  more 
than  to  see  that  they  were  there. 

Q.  Where  was  Miss  Fitzpatrick  ? 

A,  She  was  right  near  by  the  head  of  the  sofa. 

Q.  They  were  grouped  about  the  sofa? 

A.  They  were  grouped  about  the  head  of  the  sofa,  where  Miss  Surratt  was 
lying. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  enter  the  parlor  with  you? 

A  She  did. 

Q.  Did  you  follow  up  close  alongside  her,  or  stop  at  the  entrance  of  the  par- 
lor ? 

A.  I  went  right  in  with  her. 

Q.  Where  did  she  go  when  she  went  into  the  parlor? 

A.  She  stood  up  near  the  centre  of  the  room. 

Q.  Did  she  advance  towards  the  sofa — towards  IMiss  Surratt  ? 

A.  When  I  said  I  had  come  to  arrest  them,  Mrs.  Surratt  then  advanced  to- 
wards her. 

Q.  When  you  told  them  you  had  come  to  arrest  them,  you  were  standing 
near  the  centre  of  the  room  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Miss  Surratt  began  to  cr3',  and  Mrs.  Surratt  advanced  towards  her  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  embraced  her,  and  induced  her  to  be  quiet. 

Q.  Miss  Fitzpatrick  and  Miss  Jenkins  were  near  by  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  were  all  near  the  corner  of  the  room. 

Q.  And  you  say  you  did  not  testify  to  that  fact  before  the  military  commis- 
sion ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  not  asked  before  that  commission  to  state  all  that  occurred  in 
the  house  on  the  night  you  arrested  this  party  ? 

A.  I  was. 

By  Mr.  Pif,rrepo>jt  : 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  state  all  ? 

A.  Because  a  natural  embarrassment,  I  suppose,  drove  it  from  my  mind.  I 
remembered  it  afterwards,  and  stated  it.  I  did  not  think  of  it  at  the  time.  I 
recollected  it  when  I  made  my  written  statement  afterwards. 

Mr.  Mekkick.  No  matter  what  you  did  afterwards.  Have  you  been  asked 
anything  about  what  would  be  your  testimony  in  this  case  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  not  been  examined  by  anybody  with  a  view  to  this  case  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Ulysses  S.  Grant,  General  United  States  army,  sworn  and  examined  : 

By  Mr.  PiERREPOxXT  : 

Q.  At  what  time  were  you  in  command  at  Vicksburg  ? 

A.  In  the  early  part  of  1863 — the  first  half  of  the  year  1863;  there  and  oppo- 
site Vicksburg,  on  the  Mississippi,  near  Vicksburg. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  at  what  time,  if  any,  you  met  Jacob  Thompson, 
and  under  what  circumstances  1 

(Mr.  Bradley  desired  to  have  objection  to  this  testimony  noted.) 

A.  I  met  Jacob  Thompson  some  time  during  the  first  or  second  month  I  was 
at  Millikcu's  Bend,  in  the  beginning  of  1863.     I   cannot  state  the  exact  time. 

Q.  State  the  circumstances  and  what  claim  he  there  made. 

A.  One  of  our  picket-boats  discovered  a  little  sail  or  row  boat  with  a  few 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    K.    SURRATT.  337 

persons  in  it,  up  the  river,  near  the  sliore  on  the  Mississippi  side,  about  abreast 
of  where  we  were  lying  at  ihe  time,  or  where  the  flag-ship  of  Admiral  Porter 
was  lying.  I  sent  out  to  bring  them  in.  AVhen  we  were  near  to  tliem  we  dis- 
covered that  they  had  a  little  Avhite  flag,  like  a  flag  of  truce.  We  brought  them 
in,  and  I  met  Thompson  at  that  time  at  the  flag-ship  of  Admiral  I'orter. 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  any  conversation  between  General  Grantand  Thomp- 
son, or  anvbody  else  not  connected  with  the  conspiracy. 

Mr.  I'lEKKKPoNT  stated  that  the  prosecution  had  connected  Jacob  Thompson 
with  money.  They  had  a  man  who  went  there  the  same  day,  and  expected  to 
have  a  man  who  took  the  money.  They  wanted  to  show  who  Jake  Thompson 
was  and  what  relation  he  held. 

Mr.  MERKiCKasked  whether  the  prosecution  expected  to  connect  Jacob  Thomp- 
son with  tlie  conspiracy  to  kill  the  President. 

Mr.  PiEUKEPOXT  said  he  expected  to  show  that  he  was  in  it  and  aided  in  it  by 
the  use  of  money. 

The  Court  understood  counsel  for  the  prosecution  to  say  he  expected,  in  the 
examination  of  witnesses  hereafter,  to  show  the  connection  of  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar  with  Jacob  Thompson  in  regard  to  the  disbursement  of  money  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  conspiracy.  If  he  could  make  that  connection,  the  evidence 
would  be  relevant.  If  not,  it  would  be  irrelevant.  For  the  present,  the  testi- 
monv  was  admitted. 

4/ 

]\Ir.  Br.adlev  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  to  be  noted. 

Witness,  continuing:  I  met  Thompson  on  Admiral  Porter's  flag-ship  and 
had  some  conversation  with  him  He  represented  himself  as  a  staff  otlicer, 
stating  some  ostensible  business,  I  tliink  he  represented  himself  as  acting  in- 
spector general  of  the  rebel  army.  I  do  not  think  he  stated  that  he  held  a  commis- 
sion at  all  in  the  confederate  army,  but  represented  himself  as  an  acting  staff 
otficer.     It  was  in  the  eirly  part  of  1863,  when  I  was  at  Milliken's  Bend. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  to  say  March,  1863? 

A.  I  think  in  February,  1863. 

Charles  Dawson  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  A.ssisTANT  District  Attorney  : 

Q.   State  where  you  were  employed  in  the  early  part  of  1865. 

A.  I  was  at  the  National  Hotel  in  1865. 

Q.  Are  you  still  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been  there  ever  since. 

Q.  Were  you,  in  April,  1865,  acquainted  with  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Be  good  enough  to  say  if  you  have  before  you  the  register,  departure 
book,  and  cash-book  belonging  to  the  year  1865,  and  for  the  month  of  April  of 
that  year  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Refer  to  them  and  state  the  times  of  Booth's  arrival  and  departure  during 
the  months  of  January,  February,  March,  and  April,  1865. 

A.  I  cannot  tell  from  these  books  without  going  over  the  whole  books. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  articles  Booth  left  at  your  house  and  which  were  there 
on  the  day  of  the  assassination  of  the  President  ? 

A.  Hi'  left  a  large  trunk  and  a  valise. 

Q.  Where  did  they  remain? 

A.  Tliey  were  placed  in  the  baggage-roora  of  the  hotel  and  remained  there. 

Q.  When  were  they  first  examined,  to  your  knowledge  ? 

A.  They  -were  first  examined  on  the  night  of  the  assassination  and  taken 
^.o^Yn  to  the  baggage-room  and  locked  up.  Tliey  Avere  not,  to  my  knowledge, 
touched  at  all  for  a  long  time.     A  few  days  before  the  arrest  of  Surratt  I  was 


338  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT. 

in  the  baggage  room  examining  some  baggage.  Tlie  valise  was  partially  open. 
I  opened  it  to  examine  the  condition  of  the  clothing.  His  trunk  has  never  been 
opened. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  condition  of  the  clothing  in  the  valise  1 

A.  Yes;  I  took  two  or  three  pieces  out,  found  they  were  in  rather  a  bad  con- 
dition, and  put  them  back  again. 

Q.  State  what,  if  anything,  you  found,  that  particularly  occurs  to  you,  in 
that  examination. 

A.  I  lifted  up  a  black  velvet  vest  and  several  cards  fell  out  of  the  pocket. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  cards? 

A.  I  returned  to  the  pocket  all  except  one  or  two  ;  on  one  of  them  was 
written  "J.  Harrison  Surratt." 

Q.  Have  you  that  card  here  ? 

A.  I  have. 

(Card  produced.) 

Q.  Has  it  been  in  your  custody  ever  since? 

A.  It  has. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  as  the  card  had  not  been  placed  in  evidence  nor  proved 
to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  the  prisoner,  he  desired  to  have  that  part  of  the 
answer  which  stated  anything  written  on  the  card  stricken  out. 

The  Court  so  directed. 

By  the  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  well  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  a  great  number  of  times  in  the  course  of  two  years. 

Q    Did  you  ever  see  him  write  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  write  his  signature  on  the  register. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  Avritten  communications  of  his  ? 

A.  I  don't  think  I  ever  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  handAvriting  ? 

A.  I  know  his  signature. 

Q.  Examine  this  letter  (letter  handed  witness)  and  state  if  you  recognize  it, 
or  if  you  remember  ever  seeing  it  before  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  have  seen  that  letter  before. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  it  ? 

A.  It  was  in  the  rack  at  the  hotel,  where  letters  are  kept  under  initials. 
Some  time  during  the  trial  at  the  arsenal  I  was  looking  over  the  letters  under 
the  head  of  "B,"  and  the  initials  on  this  struck  me  as  rather  strange.  I  took 
the  letter  down  to  Mr.  Bingham  while  the  trial  was  going  on.  It  came  through 
the  mail,  and  was  among  the  letters  in  the  hotel  in  the  alphabetical  rack. 

Q.  The  initials  are  J.  W.  B. ;  was  there  any  other  person  than  Booth  with 
those  initials  at  that  time  stopping  at  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Was  Booth  stopping  there? 

A.  He  was  not ;  he  was  dead. 

Q.  How  long  after  the  assassination  did  you  first  see  this  letter  ? 

A.  It  was  some  time  after  the  assassination,  and  some  time  after  the  letter  was 
postmarked. 

Q.  When  was  the  last  time  you  saw  Booth  at  the  National  Hotel  ? 

A.  On  the  day  of  the  assassination,  the  14th  of  April. 

Q.  On  that  day,  or  for  some  week  previous,  had  there  been  any  person  stop- 
ping at  the  hotel  with  these  initials,  to  your  knowledge  ? 

A.  I  can  say  that,  at  the  time  I  discovered  the  letter,  I  looked  over  the  rack 
and  found  that  there  was  no  one  with  these  initials  there. 

Q.  What  was  the  postmark  of  that  letter  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURKATT.  339 

A.  I  cannot  decipher  the  name  of  the  office.  It  looks  as  much  like  Cumber- 
land, Maryland,  as  anything.     The  date  of  the  postmark  is  May  8. 

Q.  Was  the  letter  shown  you  inside  that  envelope  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Mr.  PlEKRKPONT.  We  propose  now  to  offer  this  letter  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradlkv  said  he  could  not  conceive  on  what  ground  it  could  be  offered. 

Mr.  PiBRRKPONT  said  the  letter  was  of  such  a  character  that,  it'  produced  on 
a  trial  for  murder,  it  would  be  admitted  in  evidence,  not  as  conclusive  as  to  what 
it  states,  but  as  one  of  the  iacts  to  go  to  the  jury,  the  jury  to  decide  what  infer- 
ence could  legitimately  be  drawn  from  it. 

The  Court  (to  witness.)  Do  you  know  at  what  time  it  came  into  the  hotel? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  what  time  it  came  there.  It  was  on  the  24th  of  May,  ac- 
cording to  the  report  of  that  trial,  that  I  found  it. 

The  CoiRT  overruled  the  objection,  and  admitted  the  letter  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Braulev  desired  to  have  au  exception  noted. 

The  letter  was  read  as  follows : 

South  Braxch  Bridge,  April  6.  1865. 

Friexd  Wilkes:  I  received  yours  of  March  12th,  and  reply  as  soon  as  prac- 
ticable. I  saw  French  and  Brady  and  others  about  the  oil  speculation.  The 
subscription  to  the  stock  amounts  to  eight  thousand  dollars,  and  I  add  one 
thousand  myself,  which  is  about  all  I  can  stand;  now  when  you  sink  your  well 
go  deep  enough,  don't  fail,  everything  depends  upon  you  and  your  helpers ;  if 
you  can't  get  through  on  your  trip,  after  you  strike  ile,  strike  through  Thornton 
Gap  and  across  by  Capon,  Uomney's,  and  down  the  branch,  and  I  can  keep  you 
safe  from  all  hardships  for  a  year.  I  am  clear  of  all  surveillance  now  that 
infernal  Purdy  is  beat.  I  hired  that  girl  to  charge  him  witli  an  outrage,  and  re- 
ported him  to  old  Kelly,  which  sent  him  in  the  shade,  but  he  suspects  too  damn 
much  now;  had  he  better  be  silenced  for  qoodl  I  send  this  up  by  Tom,  and  if 
he  don't  get  drunk,  you  will  get  it  the  ninth.  At  all  events,  it  can't  be  under- 
stood if  lost.  1  can't  half  write,  I  have  been  drunk  f  )r  two  days.  Don't  write 
so  much  highfalutin  next  time.  No  more;  only  Jake  will  be  at  Green's  with 
the  funds.     Burn  this.     Truly  yours,  Lou. 

Sue  Guthrie  sends  much  love.  « 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney: 

Q.  Are  you  acquainted  with  the  signature  of  Booth  ? 
A.  I  am. 

Q.  Examine  the  signature  on  this  card,  (card  shown  to  witness,)  and  say 
whether  it  is  his  signature 

A.  I  believe  that  is  Booth's  signature. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  that  letter  was  mailed  May  8  ? 

A.  That  is  the  post-mark. 

Q.  Who  distributed  the  mail  at  that  time  at  the  hotel? 

A.  I  could  not  tell.  There  were  three  clerks;  I  could  not  say  which  one 
received  that  particular  mail.  Diff'^rent  mails  weie  received  at  diti'erent  hours 
of  the  day. 

(The  witness  was  here  directed  to  make  memoranda,  from  the  hotel  books,  of 
the  arrivals  and  departures  of  Booth  from  January  1.  18(55,  down  to  the  date  of 
the  assassination,  and  bring  it  to  the  court  when  he  should  have  done  so.) 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  au  hour. 


340  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    TI.    &URRATT. 


AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

KiCHARD  C.  Morgan — residence,  New  York  city — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  In  April,  1S65,  where  were  you  stationed,  and  wliat  were  you  doing  1 

A.  I  was  in  the  service  of  the  War  Department,  as  chief  clerk  to  Colonel  01- 
cott,  special  commissioner  of  that  department. 

Q,  You  remember,  of  course,  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  evening  of  Monday,  the  17th  of  April,  following  the  assassination, 
what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  On  the  night  of  the  17th  of  April,  1865,  I  was  directed  to  proceed  to  the 
Surratt  house  on  H  street,  which  I  did. 

Q.  You  were  not  under  Colonel  Smith,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  under  a  separate  order  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  sent  down  there  first,  and  I  was  sent  down  afterwards 
to  take  charge  of  the  party  that  was  sent  down. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  house  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  When  I  got  to  the  house  1  knocked  at  the  door.  I  found  that  Major 
Smith  and  Captain  Wermerskirch  had  just  entered.  Captain  Wermerskirch 
introduced  me  to  Major  Smith,  telling  him  at  the  same  time  who  I  was.  I  then 
took  charge  of  the  party. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Surratt  there ;  and  if  so,  who  else  1 

A.  I  saw  in  the  parlor  Mrs.  Surratt,  her  daughter,  Miss  Surratt,  and  two 
other  ladies  whose  names,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  were  Miss  Fitzpatrick  and 
Miss  Jenkins.  I  cannot  be  sure  about  the  names,  however.  There  vv^as  a 
colored  woman  in  the  basement. 

Q.  You  saw  the  colored  servant,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Give  a  des  cription  of  her  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

A.  She  was  rather  a  tall  woman.     That  is  all  I  can  say  about  her. 

Q.  And  about  how  old  1 

A.  I  should  think  about  thirty. 

Q.  A  full-grown  woman  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  veiy  black. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  her  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  asked  her 


Mr.  IMekrick.  No  matter  about  that. 

The  Court.  You  must  not  speak  of  anything  that  was  said  by  others,  un- 
less it  was  said  in  the  presence  of  the  prisoner,  Mrs.  Surratt,  or  Payne. 

Q.  Have  you  a  distinct  memory  of  what  occurred  that  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  as  distinct  as  a  person  can  have  of  matters  that  occurred  two 
years  ago.     I  have  a  very  good  memory. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  written  statement  of  what  took  place  there  at  the 
time  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object.  Is  it  material  to  this  issue  to  know  whether  he 
made  any  written  statement  or  not  ? 

"^J'he  Court.  I  have  ruled  that  it  is  not. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  did  not  so  understand  your  honor's  ruling.  If  such  is 
the  case,  of  course  I  withdraw  the  question. 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  what  occurred  in  the  presence  of  Payne  ? 

A.  I  directed  that  Mrs.  Surratt  and  all  the  others  in  the  house  should  be  sent 
up  to  the  ])rovost  marshal's  office.  They  hesitated  about  going.  I  told  them 
they  should  not  delay,  but  go  right  away.     I  told  Mrs.  Surratt  to  go  up  stairs 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  341 

and  get  the  bonnet?  and  sliawlr^  of  the  rest  of  the  party.  Slio  did  so,  T  send- 
ing an  officer  along  with  her.  She  got  all  the  things  and  l)rought  theui  down 
in  the  parlor,  where  they  prepared  themselves  to  leave.  When  they  were  about 
ready  to  go,  she  said  something  about  it  being  a  cold,  dam])  night  I  said  I 
would  send  for  a  carriage,  and  immediately  directed  one  of  my  men  to  go  and 
get  one.  About  three  minutes  before  he  returned  there  was  a  knock  and  a  ring 
at  the  door.  I  was  at  the  time  standing  by  the  parlor  door.  I  instantly 
stepped  forward  and  opened  the  door,  thinking  it  was  the  man  returning 
with  the  carriage.  Instead,  however,  of  it  being  him,  a  man  entered  dressed  as  a 
laboring  man,  with  a  pickaxe  over  his  shoulder.  As  soon  as  he  saw  me  he 
stepped  back  and  said,  "  Oh,  I  am  mistaken."  Said  I,  "  Who  do  you  wish  to 
see?"  He  said,  "  Mrs.  Surratt."  I  replied,  "  It  is  all  rigiit;  come  in."  I 
passed  him  in  and  put  him  behind  the  door,  standing  myself  with  my  hand  on 
the  door,  open.  I  said  to  Mrs.  Surratt,  "  Are  you  ready  ?  "  and  then  remarked 
either  to  ^lajor  Smith,  or  one  of  the  clerks  standing  there,  I  cannot  now  say 
which,  "  Pass  them  out."  As  they  were  about  starting  I  looked  around  and 
saw  Mrs.  Surratt  just  getting  up  from  her  knees  and  crossing  horself.  I  said, 
"  Hurry  up  and  get  along;  the  carriage  is  waiting."  I  sent  a  man  off  with  them 
to  the  provost  marshal's  office.  After  I  passed  them  out  I  commenced  to  f[ues- 
tion  Payne. 

Q.  Passed  who  out  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  other  three  ladies. 

Q.  Before  you  passed  Mrs.  Surratt  out  what  was  said  to  her  about  Payne,  if 
anything  ? 

A.  After  she  got  up  from  her  knees,  iMajor  Smith  made  some  inquiry  as  to 
whether  she  recognized  him.  I  did  not  hear  exactly  what  he  did  say,  nor  the 
reply  she  made. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  to  you  ? 

A.  She  leaned  her  head  over  toward  me  and  said,  "  I  am  so  glad  you  ofH- 
cers  came  here  to-night,  for  this  man  came  here  with  a  pickaxe  to  kill  us."  I 
made  no  reply,  but  passed  them  out  the  door,  and  then  clo-ed  it  and  commenced 
to  question  Payne.  I  asked  him  how  he  came  there,  and  what  for  1  He  said 
he  came  to  dig  a  gutter  for  Mrs.  Surratt.  I  asked  him  how  he  knew  Mrs. 
Surratt. 

Q.  Was  this  after  she  had  made  the  statement  that  he  had  come  to  kill  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  She  made  that  remark  to  me  as  she  passed  out.  I  then  asked 
Payne  if  he  knew  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  how  she  happened  to  engage  him.  He 
told  me  that  he  met  her  on  the  street  and  she  then  engaged  him.  He  stated 
that  he  was  a  poor  man,  a  refugee  from  the  south.  I  told  him  it  was  a  pretty 
time  to  come  to  dig  a  gutter,  and  asked  him  where  he  was  on  Friday  night.  IL- men- 
tioned some  sort  of  street,  the  name  of  which  I  have  forgotten.  I  asked  him  if  he 
boarded  there;  and  if  not,  where  he  lived.  He  said  he  boarded  wherever  he  got 
work.  1  asked  him  if  he  expected  to  sleep  there  that  night.  He  said  he  ex- 
pected Mrs.  Surratt  would  let  him  stay  there  that  night,  as  he  was  going  to  work 
early  in  the  morning.  1  asked  him  where  he  was  from.  He  said  that  he  was 
from  Fauquier,  Virginia.  Previous  to  this  he  had  pulled  out  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance, on  which  was  written,  Lewis  Payne,  Fau([uier  county,  Virginia.  I  then 
took  the  pickaxe  out  of  his  hand,  hurled  it  round,  and  asked  him  about  him- 
self. I  ask(!d  him  how  old  he  was,  whether  he  had  any  money,  and  whether 
he  was  a  poor  man.  He  said  he  made  his  living  by  the  picka.te.  I  asked 
him  how  much  he  earned  and  where  was  the  last  place  that  he  worked.  He 
gave  me  a  very  unsati.-^factory  account.  I  said  to  him  that  I  would  have  to 
arrest  him,  and  would  send  him  up  to  the  provost  marshal's  office  as  soon  as 
the  carriage  returned,  as  my  prisoner.  On  saying  that  he  moved  as  if  about 
to  make  some  resistance.  I  called  the  captain's  clerk  and  he  stood  by  him.  lu 
a  few  minutes  the  carriage  returned  with  the  man  who  had  taken  up  Mrs.  Sur- 


342  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

ratt  and  party  ;  I  then  directed  two  officers  to  take  a  pistol  and  go  with  Payne 
in  the  carriage  to  the  provost  marshal's  office.  I  then  had  the  pickaxe  put  in 
and  the  carriage  was  driven  off.  I  remained  there  searching  for  papers  until 
about  three  or  four  o'clock  in  the  morning,  when  I  repaired  to  the  provost  mar- 
shal's office,  where  I  saw  Payne  in  irons,  and  was  told  that  he  had  been  recog- 
nized. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  in  the  house  besides  the  parties  you  have  mentioned  1 

A.  There  was  a  colored  man  there  who  said 

Mr.  Merrick.  Never  mind  what  he  said. 

Q.  Did  you  find  anybody  else  in  the  house  except  those  you  have  mentioned  ? 

A.  No  one  else  but  this  colored  man. 

Q.  You  have  said  that  you  were  there  until  three  or  four  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing examining  the  house? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  What  did  you  get,  and  what  did  you  do  with  what  you  got  ? 

A.  We  found  different  letters,  cartes-de-visite,  a  buUet-rnould. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  the  bullet-mould  1 

A.  In  the  room  back  of  the  parlor,  which  I  was  informed  was  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  what  you  were  informed. 

The  Court.  You  must  not  give  second-hand  information. 

Q.  You  say  you  found  the  bullet-mould  in  some  room  ? 

A.  I  found  it  in  the  room  back  of  the  parlor,  on  the  first  tloor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  found  the  bullet-mould, 
or  somebody  elge  ? 

A.  Well,  Captain  Wermerskirch  was  with  me,  and  we  might  both  have  seen 
it  at  the  same  time.  We  took  possession  of  an  empty  trunk  which  we  found 
there,  and  anything  we  discovered  that  we  deemed  of  any  consequence  we 
would  throw  into  this  trunk. 

Q.  What  else  did  you  find  in  this  room  ?  What  was  found  by  yourself  or 
when  you  were  present  and  looked  on  ? 

A.  Well,  I  will  just  say  that  I  might  have  picked  up  a  letter  or  something 
and  showed  it  to  Captain  Wermerskirch,  and  he  might,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
done  the  same  by  me ;   we  were  both  searching  together. 

Q.  Well,  let  us  know  what  was  found  in  that  way. 

A.  There  were  some  letters,  a  portfolio,  and  some  bullets. 

Q.  Where  were  the  bullets  found? 

A.  I  think  near  the  bullet-mould.     We  also  found  some  caps. 

Q.  Did  you  learn  from  jNIrs.  Surratt  whose  room  that  was  in  which  you  found 
the  bullet-mould,  the  bullets,  and  the  caps  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  1  did,  only  some  one  there  said 

Mr.  Merrick.  Nevermind. 

The  District  Attorney.  You  can  state  what  was  said,  if  in  her  presence. 

Mr.  PlERREPOXT.  What,  if  anything,  was  said  in  her  presence  as  to  whose 
room  it  was  in  which  these  things  were  found  ? 

Mv.  Bradley.  In  her  presence  and  hearing. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  sir. 

Witness.  I  could  not  say  about  that  positively,  but  it  is  my  impression  that 
she  said  as  she  was  passing  out,  "  This  is  my  room,"  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Yonr  impression  is  that  she  said  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  my  impression,  but  I  am  not  certain  about  it. 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  as  to  whether  she  said  that  or  not  ? 

A.  Well,  as  I  say,  1  think  she  did,  but  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  That  is  your  best  recollection  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  the  room  oft'  the  parlor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  343 

Q.  What  flse  did  you  find  1 

A.  A  card,  with  "*/c  semper  tz/rannis"  on  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Don't  state  that. 

The  Court.  You  must  not  state  what  the  card  had  on  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  found  a  card  with  some  writin<^  on  it.  What  did  you 
do  with  that  i 

A.  Threw  it  in  with  the  other  things. 

Q.  What  else  was  found  ? 

A.  A  pair  of  boots.  Those  were  found  in  the  room  over  this  one,  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  floor.  Tliey  were  all  dirty,  as  if  they  had  just  been  taken  off.  We 
also  found  a  portfolio  and  a  whistle. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  the  whistle  lately  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  else  ? 

A.  I  will  have  to  think  awhile.  It  was  a  good  while  ago,  and  so  many  things 
have  occurred  since  then  that  I  cannot  upon  the  instant  recall  everything. 

Q.  Did  you  find  a  spur? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  part  of  a  spur.  Another  one  was  found,  too,  which  was  also 
broken. 

Q.  And  what  else  ? 

A.  A  bank  book  ;   I  took  the  bank  book,  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  find  an  under-shirt  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  all  those  things.     I  might  have. 

]\[r.  PlERREPONT.   I  only  want  what  you  remember. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Are  you  now  talking  about  the  room  back  of  the  parlor,  or  the 
one  up  stairs  ? 

Witness.  We  went  through  the  lower  rooms  first.  Then  we  went  through 
the  upper  ones. 

Q.  And  you  found  a  pair  of  boots  all  dirty  in  the  upper  room  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  find  any  letters  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  any  quantity  of  them.  . 

Q.  What  did  you  do  Avith  that  quantity  of  letters  ? 

A.  Put  them  in  the  trunk  and  delivered  them  at  the  provost  marshal's  office, 
with  the  other  papers. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  them  since? 

A.  I  saw  them  the  next  day,  or  a  few  days  after  that. 

Q.  You  have  not  seen  them  lately,  I  suppose  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  identify  this?  (handing  witness  a  small  whistle.) 

A.  I  think  that  is  the  same  whistle  that  I  picked  up  there.  It  is  my  im- 
pression that  I  picked  that  up  on  the  floor  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  room,  or  on  the  man- 
tel-piece. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT,  after  privately  consulting  with  counsel  for  the  prisoner, 
said :  I  hold  in  my  hand,  your  honor,  what  purports  to  be  a  receipt  given  by 
Miss  Anna  Surratt  for  certain  articles  taken  from  her  mother's  house,  which 
were  delivered  to  her  on  the  28th  of  June,  1865,  by  the  then  provost  marshal  of 
this  city. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Dont'tlet  us  have  that  kind  of  evidence  in  the  case. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  will  merely  ask  if  the  counsel  will  produce  these  articles. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  must  serve  us  with  regular  notice  for  anything  we  have 
relating  to  this  case. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  presume  we  will  have  to  do  so  before  we  can  get  them. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  court  has  no  contiol  over  that. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  do  not  know  how  that  may  be.  Of  com-se  we  will  have 
to  conform  to  whatever  has  been  the  practice.. 


344  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

The  Court.  Are  the  papers  or  articles  mentioned  there  in  the  custody  of 
Miss  Anna  Surratt  ? 

Mr.  PiERRKPOXT.  It  seems  from  this  statement  that  certain  papers  and  letters 
■were  delivered  to  her.  We  desire  tlie  papers,  and  will,  of  course,  pursue  what- 
ever is  the  proper  mode  in  order  to  get  them.  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  prac- 
tice here. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Surely  the  district  attorney  knows,  if  Judge  Pierrepont  does 
not. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  court  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it.  It  does  not 
know  anything  about  it  as  yet. 

Mr.  PiERkEP().\T.  I  myself  do  not  know  what  course  to  take  in  order  to 
secure  them,  whether  by  application  direct  or  some  other  process.  Xo  doubt 
the  district  attorney  knows,  and  I  will  confer  with  him. 

Examination  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Have  you  stated  anything  about  photographs  ? 

A.  I  mentioned  cartes-de-visite. 

Q.  Were  they  photographs  1 

Mr.  Bradley'.  What  is  a  carte-de-visite  but  a  photograph? 

Witness.  There  is  a  diflFerence. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  What  is  the  difference  ? 

Witness.  The  one  is  taken  on  glas^  and  the  other  on  a  card. 

Mr.  Merrick.  What,  a  photograph  taken  on  glass  1 

The  District  Attorney.  Well,  gentlemen,  we  will  exhibit  them  to  the  wit- 
ness. 

The  Court.  I  think  he  is  hardly  an  expert  in  the  photograph  business. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Whatever  they  are,  we  can  produce  them.  Mr.  AVright 
has  them,  I  believe. 

Q.  You  say  there  were  a  large  c^uautity  of  Ittters  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  how  many  would  you  say  ? 

A.  I  should  think  one  hundred,  or  so. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  We  shall  have  to  take  the  necessary  means  to  get  them 
before  we  can  lay  any  foundation  for  proving  their  contents ;  whatever  is  re- 
quired under  the  practice  of  course  we  will  comply  with. 

Mr.  Wilson  (after  conferring  with  the  witness  Wright.)  There  is  only  one 
of  these  photographs  here. 

]\Ir.  Pierrepont.  Where  are  the  others  ? 

Mr.  Wilson.  They  have  been  returned,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that?  (handing  witness  a  square  pasteboard 
frame  containing  a  carte-de-visite.) 

A.  It  is  my  impression  this  was  found  on  Mrs.  Surratt's  mantel-piece. 

Q.  Is  It  in  the  same  condition  now  as  it  was  when  you  found  it  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  witness  says  it  is  his  impression  he  found  it. 

Q.  When  you  say  "  your  impression"  what  do  you  mean  ? 

A.  I  mean  a  frame  like  that  was  found. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean — that  that  is  your  best  recollection  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  having  seen  that  before  1 

A.  I  recoll(;cl  of  having  seen  it  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  the  mantel-piece. 
That  is,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  saw  it. 

Q.  What  was  it  in  when  you  saw  it  there  ? 

A.  It  was  a  different  kind  of  a  picture.  There  was  a  fancy  picture,  and  on 
the  back  of  it  there  was 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  345 

Mr.  Bradley.  Stop  a  moment.  The  witness  says  he  saw  a  different  kind  of 
a  thing  at  that  time.     Let  us  have  that  different  kind  of  a  thing. 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT.  I  haven't  the  thing,  as  I  know  of;  I  am  trying  to  find  it. 
You  know  as  much  about  it  as  I  do. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  was  in  this  frame  when  you  found  it  in  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt's  room  ? 

A.  I  cannot  remember.  There  was  a  picture  in  it ;  something  in  the  back  of 
it ;  a  carte-de-visite  of  Booth  in  the  back  of  it. 

Q.  Is  the  carte-de-vis;ite  of  Booth  in  the  back  of  it  now  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  object  to  that  testimony. 

The  Court.  You  object  to  his  saying  anything  about  it  at  all  1 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  object  to  his  making  known  what  was  in  it,  in  the  way 
of  a  paper  having  on  it  a  picture  or  writing.     Let  them  produce  the  paper. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Suppose  we  don't  choose  to  produce  it. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then  you  can't  prove  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  we  can,  if  we  show  there  was  a  picture  in  it. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  there  was  in  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  object  until  they  lay  the  foundation, 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  undertake  to  show  what  was  the  condition  of  that  when 
found.  That  I  have  a  right  to  do.  I  do  not  know  what  was  in  it.  I  am  en- 
deavoring to  ascertain  that. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then  I  say  you  had  better  have  somebody  examine  the  wit- 
ness who  does  know.  I  will  cite  this,  your  honor,  in  illustration  of  the  propri- 
ety of  our  objection.  As  I  understand  it,  this  is  a  sort  of  a  frame  in  which  dif- 
ferent pictures  might  fit.  The  counsel  hands  this  frame  to  the  witness  and 
asks  him  whether  there  was  or  not  some  picture  in  it  when  he  got  it  which  is 
not  in  it  now.  He  might  just  as  well  hand  the  witness  an  envelope  which  might 
contain  any  one  letter,  and  ask  him  to  look  at  the  letter  in  it,  and  state  if  that 
is  the  same  letter  he  saw  in  it  before ;  and  when  the  witness  says  it  is  not  the 
letter  which  was  in  it  when  he  first  saw  it,  then  ask  him  to  go  on  and  state  what 
was  in   the   envelope  when  he  did  see   it.     I   cannot  see  any  difference. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  There  is  no  difference  ;  I  would  have  aright  to  present  the 
witness  with  an  envelope  and  ask  him  whether  it  was  in  the  same  condition 
now,  as  when  he  first  saw  it ;  and  if  he  said  it  was,  why  very  well ;  but  if  he 
said  it  was  not 

Mr.  Merrick.  You  would  have  a  right  to  ask  him  as  to  whether  the  enve- 
lope was  in  the  same  condition,  but  you  would  not  have  a  right  to  ask  him  as 
to  the  contents  of  the  envelope. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  not  asking  the  contents. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  occasion  for  any  difference  belAveen 
you.  You  are  both  desirous,  I  presume,  of  getting  at  the  fact  whether  this  frame 
is  in  the  same  condition  now  as  it  was  when  first  seen  by  the  witness. 

Mr,  Merrick.  He  has  already  stated  distinctly  that  it  is  not  in  the  same  con- 
dition. He  was  then  going  on  to  slate  that  there  was  a  carte-de-visilQ  of  J. 
Wilkes  Booth  in  it,  to  which  we  oljected.  Tlie  gentleman  insists  that  he  has 
a  right  to  ask  him  what  was  on  the  card. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  have  not  asked  him  what  Avas  on  the  card. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  object  to  anything  being  said  about  the  carte-de-viBite, 
unless  they  produce  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  have  not  reached  that  point  yet. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at  this  frame  and  state  if  you  now  find,  anything  in 
the  back  of  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Anywhere  ;  I  do  not  care  where  ? 

A.  This  is  the  back  ;  (back  of  the  glass  face.) 

Q.  I  say  in  it  ? 

23 


346  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  find  in  it  a  card  with  "morning,  noon,  and  night*'  on  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  there  was  anything  else  in  it  when  you  found  it  1 

Mr.  Mkkrick.  Don't  state  what  it  was. 

A.  This  frame  is  not  in  the  same  condition  as  when  I  found  it,  but  I  cannot 
exactly  say. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  not  asking  now  the  condition  of  the  frame;  I  am  asking 
whether  there  was  anything  else  either  in  the  back  or  front  when  you  found  it. 

A.  Yes,  sir;   there  was  a  card. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  became  of  that  something  ] 

A.  It  was  turned  over  to  the  government. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  that  (handing  witness  a  photographic  picture  of  Booth,) 
and  state  whether  that  is  the  something  that  was  turned  over  to  the  government. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  might  have  produced  that  at  first  and  saved  all  trouble 
about  it. 

Mr  PiERREPONT.  We  were  trying  to  get  at  this. 

Mr.  Merrick    In  rather  a  circuitous  manner. 

Mr  PiERREPONT.  The  circuity  grew  out  of  your  objection. 

Q.  You  will  please  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  can  say  that  it  was  a  picture  like  this.  I  cannot  say  that  this  is  the 
Identical  one. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  that  is  the  picture  of? 

A.  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

<Q.  Will  you  state  where  the  picture  like  this,  as  you  say,  was  in  that  frame  1 

A.  It  was  in  the  back  of  it.  There  was  another  picture  in  front  of  it  ;  that 
is,  I  mean  of  the  frame  which  I  have  reference  to.  If  this  is  the  same  one,  why 
of  this. 

Q.  And  that  picture  could  not  be  seen  when  you  looked  at  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Braoley: 

Q.  You  state  to  the  jury  that  that  is  the  same  frame  or  case  which  you  saw 
at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  is.  It  is  much  defaced  now,  and,  there- 
fore, I  cannot  be  positive.     It  may  be  the  same,  and  then  again  it  may  not. 

Q.  Is  there  any  mark  upon  it  by  which  you  can  identify  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Has  it  not  been  broken  since  you  saw  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  there  in  that  case;  any  picture  besides  the  one  which  you  say 
was  the  picture  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  I  cannot  remember  how  many  pictures  were  in  it. 

Q.  Only  one  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  picture  besides  that  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  there  were  two  1 

A.  One  was  put  back  and  not  shown  as  a  picture. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  how  much  was  shown.  How  many  pictures  were  in  that 
frame  1 

A    Two. 

Q.  One  was  a  picture  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  that  frame  and  picture  1 

A.  It  was  turned  over  with  the  rest  of  the  papers  to  the  provost  marshal. 
They  were  put  up  together.  It  was  the  next  morning,  I  think,  when  that  was 
found. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  347 

Q.  Did  you  turn  them  over  to  the  provost  marshal  yourself? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  took  them  to  his  office.     I  did  uot  turn  them  over  to  him. 

Q.  Were  they  or  not  put  into  that  trunk  ? 

A.  They  were  taken  from  the  house  in  a  trunk,  and  remaiued  in  that  trunk 
until  they  were  assorted  out  and  filed. 

Q.  And  that  trunk,  with  these  things  in  it,  you  carried  to  the  provost 
marshal's  ofiice  yourself? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  with  the  assistance  of  Major  Smith.  We  put  it  into  a  carriage 
and  took  it  up  there. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  at  that  house  all  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  towards  four  o'clock  la  the  morning  I  left. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  return  1 

A.  I  went  down  there  the  next  morning,  I  think,  between  ten  and  eleven 
o'clock. 

Q.  Was  that  trunk  locked  1 

A.  Tliat  trunk  was  not  at  the  Surratt  house  when  I  returned. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  you  found  the  trunk  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  room  1 

A.  I  took  the  trunk  to  the  provost  marshal's  office,  and  when  I  left,  locked  it  up. 

Q.  Who  had  the  key  ? 

A.  Some  officer  attached  to  the  department  there. 

Q.  You  did  not  keep  it  yourself? 

A.  1  might  have  taken  it  I  went  in  the  morning  and  looked  over  some  of 
those  papers;  staid  there  for  an  hour  or  two,  and  then  went  down  to  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt's again  to  see  if  I  could  find  anything  else. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  when  you  got  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  you 
took  charge  of  the  party  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  had  command  of  Major  Smith  ? 

A.  I  do  not  suppose  he  would  consider  I  had. 

Q.  You  ordered  him  to  do  so  and  so  l 

A.  Yes,  sir,  1  did ;  Captain  Wermerskirch  introduced  me  to  him.  I  then  said 
I  would  take  charge,  and  he  expressed  himself  as  willing,  and  said  he  was  very 
glad. 

Q.  Who  was  the  superior  officer  there  ? 

A.  All  the  men  who  were  there  were  under  my  orders,  and  had  been  for  three 
or  four  years  before. 

Q.   What  commission  did  you  hold  ] 

A.  I  was  chief  clerk  to  Colonel  Olcott,  special  commissioner  of  the  War  De- 
partment. 

Q.  What  office  was  that  special  commissioner  of  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  An  office  of  special  commissioner  for  the  investigation  of  frauds  on  the 
government. 

Q.  And  you  were  chief  clerk  under  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  military  rank  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  Major  Smith  any  military  rank  then  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  was  in  the  volunteer  service. 

Q.  Had  he  anything  to  do  with  the  detective  service? 

A.  I  do  not  know.     He  might  have  had. 

Q.  Had  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  Captain  Wermerskirch's  position? 

A.  He  was  a  captain  in  the  volunteer  service. 

Q.  And  you  took  charge  of  these  two  officers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     The  other  officer  was  Thomas  Sampson  ;  he  was  a  defective. 


348  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  He  went  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  was  a  detective.   C.  H.  Rosh  was  there,  and  he  was  a  detective. 

Q.  You  took  charge  of  the  whole  party  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  detectives  were  under  Colonel  Olcott,  and  acting  under  my 
orders  at  that  time. 

Q.  Who  gave  permission  to  Mrs.  Sun-att  to  go  up  stairs  and  get  her  shawl  1 

A.  Well,  Major  Smith  and  myself  were  standing  at  the  door ;  we  found  it 
necessary  to  have  the  shawls,  and  I  mentioned  to  Major  Smith  to  accompany 
Mrs.  Surratt.     I  told  her  to  get  ready,  and  I  said 

Q.  Did  you  direct  Mrs  Surratt  to  go  up  stairs  and  get  the  bonnets  and  shawls 
of  the  rest  of  the  party  in  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  direct  Major  Smith  to  accompany  her  ? 

A.  I  might  have  directed  him  to  do  it,  or  he  might  have  volunteered  to  do  it. 

Q.  When  you  reached  there,  I  understand  that  the  ladies  were  in  the  parlor 
and  were  about  to  leave  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  but  they  were  all  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  They  Avere  not  about  to  leave  when  you  reached  there  ? 

A.  Not  when  I  first  reached  there.  They  Avere  about  to  leave  as  Payne  en- 
tered. 

Q.  You  were  examined  as  a  witness  before  the  military  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

(4.  Do  you  recollect  of  stating  on  that  occasion  that  you  arrived  at  the  house 
about  half  past  eleven  o'clock,  and  found  Major  Smith,  Captain  Wermerskirch, 
and  some  other  officers,  who  had  been  there  about  ten  minutes.  The  inmates 
were  in  the  parlor,  about  ready  to  leave? 

A.  I  might  have  made  that  statement.     I  have  no  doubt  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  and  Captain  Wermerskirch  ordered  by  Major  Smith  to  place 
yourselves  at  the  door,  when  somebody  knocked  at  the  door  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  Captain  Wermerskirch  was  at  the  parlor  door. 

Q.  You  were  not  ordered  there  by  Major  Smith  1 

A.  No,  sir;  not  a  bit.     Major  Smith  was  in  the  back-room  at  the  time. 

Q.  Where  was  Major  Smith  at  the  time  Payne  came  up  to  the  door? 

A.  He  was  at  the  back  door,  and  as  the  bell  rung  he  came  forward.  Cap- 
tain AVermerskirch  and  myself  were  standing  at  the  parlor  door,  while  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt and  the  ladies  were  putting  on  their  things.  They  were  about  ready  to 
start  when  there  was  a  knock  and  a  ring  at  the  same  time.  I  thought  it  was 
the  inan  who  had  been  sent  for  the  carriage.  Captain  Wermerskirch  and  my- 
self stepped  up  to  the  door  and  I  opened  it. 

Q.  You  did  not  do  it  under  the  orders  of  Major  Smith? 

A.  No,  six*.  We  opened  it,  and  then  Major  Smith  came  forAvard.  He  got 
there  just  as  I  opened  it.  Payne  entered  Avhen  he  said  "I  am  mistaken."  I 
remarked  to  him,  "It  is  all  right ;  who  do  you  Avish  to  see?"  He  said,  "Mrs. 
Surratt."  I  said,  "All  right,  come  in."  When  he  got  in  a  little  Avay,  I  looked 
iu  the  parlor  and  said  to  Smith,  Avho  Avas  there,  "Are  the  ladies  ready."  1  put 
uiy  hand  on  the  parlor  door. 

Q.  Where  Avas  Major  Smith  at  that  time? 

A.  He  Avas  about  there  in  the  entry. 
Q.  Moving  about? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  interrogated  Payne? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  are  confident  about  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Major  Smith  joined  in  some  afterAvards.  I  kept  up  the  conver- 
sation Avith  Payne,  but  Jlajor  Smith  and  Captain  Wermerskirch,  Avho  Avere 
alongside,  asked  questions  occasionally.     I  Avent  on  and  talked  with  Payne, 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  349 

and  Major  Smith  and  Captain  Wermerskircli  went  into  the  back  parlor,  wliere 
we  had  been  geavching  for  papers.  I  carried  on  the  conversation  with  Payne 
alone  for  twenty  minutes. 

Q.  Were  you  close  to  Payne  all  the  while  you  two  were  together  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.   Where  was  Mrs.  Surratt  while  you  were  interrogating  Payne? 

A.  I  had  not  asked  Payne  more  than  seven  or  eight  questions  before  I  passed 
Mrs.  Surratt  out. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Major  Smith  ask  Mrs.  Surratt  if  she  had  hired  that  man  to 
do  the  work  thei*e  ? 

A.  My  impression  is  that  when  Jfi's.  Surratt  was  coming  out  of  the  parlor  to 
leave,  Major  Smith  asked  her  if  she  had  ever  seen  that  man  (Payne)  before. 
Payne  was  standing  right  behind  me,  and  my  arm  was  resting  against  the  door. 
I  was  nearer  to  Payne  than  I  was  to  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  What  did  Mrs.  Surratt  reply  ? 

A.  Well,  I  might  not  have  heard  that.  The  remark  was  made  aftervv'ards 
that 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  about  that. 

Witness.  I  will  repeat  that  1  was  nearer  to  Payne  than  I  was  to  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt.    She  spoke  in  a  very  low  tone  of  voice. 

Q.  I  understand  that  at  that  time  you  were  standing  with  your  arm  upon  the 
door,  and  that  Payne  was  behind  your  arm  close  to  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

(Witness  here  prepared  a  diagram  of  the  hall,  showing  the  exact  locality  of 
the  doors  and  the  relative  positions  of  Payne,  Major  Smith,  and  himself  as  Mrs. 
Surratt  and  the  two  young  ladies  left  the  parlor  and  passed  out  into  the  street. 
We  present  it  below : 


£ 


B 
-I  I- 


Rrferexcf.s  :  A — Front  door.  B — Parlor  door.  C — Major  Smith.  D— Payne. 
E — Wituess,  Morgan.) 

Witness,  explaining  the  diagram,  said  :  Payne  was  just  behind  me  as  I  stood 
with  my  arm  against  the  door,  which  was  partially  opened  ;  the  door  opening  to 
the  right.  I  was  between  Payne  and  the  door.  Major  Smith  stood  near  the  parlor 
door,  just  in  the  position  represented  by  the  letter  C  on  the  diagram.  The 
party  passed  in  front  of  me  as  they  went  out. 

Q.  Were  you  close  enough  to  hear  everything  that  passed  ? 

A.  I  could  if  I  had  paid  particular  .attention.  I  had  my  eye  on  I'ayne  all 
the  time. 

Q.  Were  you  not  on  the  watch,  listening  to  everything  that  passed  at  that 
time  ?     Wasn't  it  very  important  for  you  to  hear  everything  that  was  said  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii-.  I  did  not  attach  so  much  importance  to  that,  however,  as  I  did 
to  keeping  an  eye  to  the  movements  of  Payne.  I  left  Captain  Wermerskircli 
and  Major  Smith  to  attend  to  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  stop  at  any  time  after  Major  Smith  spoke  to  her,  or  did 
you  pass  her  right  out  of  the  house  ? 

A.  She  might  have  stopped  on  the  parlor  sill  and  I  could  not  have  seen  her 
whole  body. 


350  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Q.  While  they  were  in  the  act  of  passing  out,  did  you  see  Mrs.  Sarratt  take 
a  step  out  into  {he  hall,  throw  up  her  hands,  and  make  some  exclamation  ? 

A,  No,  sir;  I  cannot  say  1  saw  her.     She  might  have  done  so  in  the  parlor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  speak  now  of  what  occurred  in  the  hall. 

Witness.  I  saw  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  hall. 

Q.  Describe  as  well  as  you  can  the  manner  in  which  Payne  was  dressed  that 
night. 

A.  He  had  on  black  pants,  a  gray  vest,  a  gray  coat,  and  part  of  a  shirt  sleeve 
or  the  leg  of  a  drawer  as  a  hat,  with  a  pickaxe  over  his  shoulder.  This  shirt 
sleeve  was  of  gray  flannel — what  they  call  gray  cotton  flannel. 

Q.  Describe  his  appearance  as  well  as  you  can ;  whether  he  appeared  to  be 
greatly  exhausted,  or  was  fresh  and  vigorous. 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  greatly  t'xliausted.  I  was  particularly  impressed  with 
the  fact. 

Q.  State  M'hether  his  clothes  were  much  soiled  or  not,  and  in  what  respect. 

A.  The  bottom  part  of  his  pants  on  both  legs  was  very  much  soiled,  and  his 
boots  were  wet,  as  if  had  been  going  through  swamps. 

Q.  State,  if  you  recollect,  whether  the  coat  was  apparently  worn  or  nearly 
new. 

A.  I  could  not  tell  that.     It  was  not  bran  new,  and  it  was  not  an  old  coat. 

Q.  State  the  condition  of  the  light  in  that  hall,  and  also  its  position. 

A.  The  light  was  low  at  first. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  mean  at  the  time  the  ladies  were  taken  into  custody  and 
were  passed  out  of  the  house. 

A.  1  cannot  recollect.  It  might  have  been  bright.  We  sometimes  lowered 
it,  and  then  again  at  other  times  brightened  it. 

Q.  Was  or  not  the  light  very  low  when  you  went  in  ? 

A.  It  was  low  when  Payne  entered. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  light  bemg  raised  after  Payne  got  there,  until  the 
ladies  had  gone  out  and  got  into  the  carriage. 

A.  I  think  it  was  raised  about  that  time. 

Q.  When  you  began  your  search  ? 

A.  I  think  before  that.  I  cannot  recollect  distinctly  as  to  the  moment  when 
it  was  raised. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Payne  was  sitting  or  standing  in  the  hall  ? 

A.  He  was  standing  a  long  while.  I  finally  told  him  to  take  a  seat.  There 
was  one  seat  in  the  hall. 

Q.  I  mean  before  the  ladies  went  out? 

A.  He  was  standing  then. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q    Where  was  Payne  in  reference  to  you  when  Mrs.  Surratt  went  out  ? 

A.  Payne  was  close  up  to  me. 

Q.  Did  Payne  make  any  reply  when  ^Irs.  Surratt  leaned  a  little  back  in  the 
manner  you  have  described,  and  said  to  you,  "  I  am  glad  you  oflicers  came  here 
to-night,  as  that  man  with  a  pickaxe  came  to  kill  us  ]" 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Was  it  said  loud  enough  for  him  to  hear  ? 

A.  She  did  not  speak  very  loud.  It  was  at  times  difficult  to  understand  what 
she  did  say.     She  had  occasionally  to  be  asked  to  repeat  two  or  three  times. 

Q.  Was  this  remark  spoken  in  a  confidential  tone  '{ 

A.  No,  sir;   but  she  seemed  to  speak  in  a  low  tone. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  she  seem  to  be  agitated? 

A.  No,  sir,  she  was  not  at  all  agitated. 

Q.  Payne  did  not  make  any  reply  to  this  remark  of  hers  1 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  351 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  he  hear  it  ? 
A.  I  could  not  tell  what  he  heard. 

JoHx\  W.  Pettit  recalled. 

By  the  DisTiucT  Attorney  : 

Q.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  examine  this  whistle  (handing  witness  the 
whistle  referred  to  by  witness  Morgan)  and  state  if  you  have  seen  it  before? 

A.  I  never  saw  it  before  to-day.     It  is  a  dog  whistle. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  heard  this  whistle  or  not ;  I  heard  a  sound. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  ask  you  if  you  heard  any  one  blow  on  that 
whistle  to-day  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  1  heard  you  blow  on  it  to-day. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  that  sound  resembled  the  one  which  you  have  already 
testified  as  having  heard  at  the  theatre  ? 

Mr.  Merrk'K.  ]May  it  please  your  honor,  is  not  this  degenerating  into  a  farce? 

Mr.  Pierrkpont.  There  is  no  farce  about  it. 

Mr.  Merrick.  It  is  getting  to  be  very  much  like  one. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  submit,  sir,  it  is  competent  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  court  will  say. 

The  District  Attorney.  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  practice  a  farce,  or  to  ask 
anything  that  we  deem  to  be  impi-oper.  The  witness  has  already  testified  to 
hearing  a  whistle  near  the  theatre  on  that  night,  and  shortly  afterwards  learning 
of  the  assassination  of  the  President.  This  Avhistle  has  been  found  in  the  pos- 
session of  a  person  whom  we  charge  to  have  been  implicated  in  this  conspiracy. 
He  can  state  to  the  court  whether  the  sound  which  ho  heard  upon  that  occasion 
resembled  tlie  one  which  lie  heard  from  this  whistle  to-day. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Suppose  he  had  found  an  Alpine  horn  in  the  room,  the 
principle  would  be  the  same  precisely. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Suppose  you  had  found  a  drum. 

Mr.  Merrick.  And  beat  on  the  drum,  and  ask  if  that  sounded  like  it. 

Mr.  Bradlly.  Have  you  a  very  accurate  musical  ear? 

Witness,  (smiling.)  1  have  a  taste  for  sweet  sounds. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see  that  there  can  be  any  reliance  placed  upon  testimony 
of  this  character. 

The  District  Attornry.  We  submit  whether  the  question  as  to  the  weight 
of  such  testimony  is  not  a  question  for  the  jury.  We  deem  it  our  duty  in  a  case 
of  this  kind,  indeed  in  every  case  involving  life  and  liberty,  to  offer  in  evidence 
to  the  jury  every  fact  which  will  tend  to  aid  them  in  coming  to  a  correct 
conclusion.  I  hope,  sir,  and  I  am  sure,  your  honor  will  not  treat  the  matter  with 
the  levity  that  counsel  seem  disposed  to. 

The  Court.  Certainly  not;  I  have  no  disposition  to  treat  this  matter  with 
levity  at  all. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  was  sure  not,  sir.  I  repeat  that  we  look 
upon  it  as  proper  evidence.  It  is  for  your  honor  to  determine,  however.  This 
witness  has  distinctly  testified  that  he  on  that  night  heard  a  whistle — 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Heard  a  signal  whistle. 

The  District  Attorney.  Yes,  sir;  heard  a  signal  whistle,  and  a  few  mo- 
ments afterwards  heard  of  the  assassination  of  the  President.  He  states  that  he 
was  at  that  time  residing  very  near  Ford's  theatre — -just  in  the  rear  of  it.  Cer- 
tainly then,  sir,  it  is  a  matter  of  very  great  importance  for  the  jury  to  know 
whether  the  sound  which  he  heard  on  that  occasion  resembles  the  one  made  by 
this  whistle. 

The  Court.  We  will  dispose  of  the  matter  by  getting  the  witness  to  make  a 
sound  with  this  whistle,  and  then  have  him  state  whether  the  sound  thus  pro- 
duced resembles  the  one  he  heard  on  the  night  of  the  assassination  near  the 


352  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

theatre,  ■which  he  said  in  his  former  examination  he   believed   to  be  a  signal 
whistle. 

(To  this  ruling  counsel  for  the  prisoner  reserve  an  exception.) 

Witness  then  blew  the  whistle,  and  said  : 

It  was  a  sound  similar  to  that.      (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Merrick.  This  is  ridiculous. 

Mr.  PiERRRPONT.  I  do  not  see  anything  ridiculous  about  it. 

Mrs.  Mary  Benson — residence,  Linsing,  Canada — sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  Linsing,  in  Canada. 

Q.  You  are  the  wife  of  Dr.  Benson,  a  practicing  physician  in  that  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  formerly  resided  in  New  York  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  married  to  Dr.  Benson  ? 

A.  Two  years. 

Q.  Wliat  was  your  name  prev'ous  to  the  marriage  1 

A.  Mary  Hudspeth. 

Q.  Was  your  former  husband  living  in  the  year  1865  1 

A.  He  was  not. 

Q.  You  were  a  widow  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  you  were  in  New  York  city  in  the  month  of  November,  1865. 

A.  I  was  there  in  1864. 

Q.  What  time  in  1864  ? 

A.  In  November,  1864. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  that  impresses  the  date  on  your  mind  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  November  was  it — the  first  or  last  part  ? 

A.  It  was  about  the  ]  4th,  I  think. 

Q.  What  is  it  that  enables  you  to  recollect  the  month? 

A.  The  circumstance  of  picking  up  letters  in  regard  to  the  assassination  ? 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  General  Scott  and  General  Butler  being  in  the  city  at 
that  time? 

A.  General  Butler  had  been  in  the  city,  but  he  had  left  on  the  morning  of  the 
day  I  found  the  letters. 

Q.  Was  General  Scott  there  on  that  day? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  "\vas  at  the  Hoffman  Hou.'^e;  he  resided  there. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  madam,  during  that  visit  in  November,  riding  on  the 
Third  avenue  cars? 

A.  1  do. 

Q.  Who  was  in  company  with  you  at  that  time  ? 

A.  My  little  girl,  my  daughter,  was  with  me. 

Q.  How  old  was  she  ? 

A.  She  was  nine  years  of  age  at  that  time. 

Q.  Was  any  one  else  in  company  with  you  and  your  daughter  at  that  time  ? 

A.  There  Avas  not. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  saw  anything  on  the  cars  at  that  time,  or  heard  any- 
thing, that  attracted  your  attention  ;  and  if  so,  state  what  it  was. 

A.  There  were  two  gentlemen  in  the  car,  sitting  next  to  me.  One  of  these 
was  an  educated  man,  and  the  other  was  not.  I  overheard  their  conversation, 
at  different  times,  when  the  car  would  stop. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  the  appearance  of  these  parties. 

A.  One  of  them  was  a  very  fine,  gentlemanly-looking  man. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  353 

Q.  Did  you  observe  his  band  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Did  that  attract  your  attention? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  had  the  hand  of  a  man  who  was  never  obliged  to  do  any  work ; 
had  a  smooth,  white  liand.     It  was  quite  a  small  baud. 

Q.  Did  yon  observe  anything;  about  his  face  that  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  My  seeing  that  he  was  disguised  was  what  first  attracted  my  attention. 
In  tbe  jarring  of  the  car,  his  head  was  struck,  Avhich  had  the  effect  to  push  for- 
ward Iiis  hat.  He  seemed  to  have  a  wig  and  false  whiskers  on,  and  these  were 
pushed  forward  at  the  same  time,  showing  the  skin  underneath  the  whiskers  to 
be  fairer  than  the  front  part  of  his  face,  which  seemed  to  be  stained  with  some- 
thing.    The  front  part  of  bis  face  was  darker  than  that  under  the  whiskers. 

Q.  State  if  there  was  anything  peculiar  about  either  of  them  on  the  face. 

A.  There  was  a  scar  on  the  right  cheek  of  the  gentlemanly  looking  man,  just 
underneath  where  the  whiskers  were.  When  the  whiskers  were  push(-d  forward, 
I  could  see  the  scar;  that  was  on  the  side  next  to  me. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  a  description  of  the  other  one? 

A.  The  other  person  was  a  lax-ge  man,  a  common-looking  man.  He  was  a 
shorter  and  a  stouter  man  than  this  one.  The  one  who  had  the  scar  on  the  face 
called  bim  by  the  name  of  Johnson. 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  both,  or  either  of  them,  were  armed  in  any  way ;  and  if 
so,  what  arms  they  had  ? 

A.  The  well-dressed  gentleman,  the  one  who  sat  next  to  me,  put  his  hand 
back  to  get  letters  out  of  his  pocket,  and  I  saw  that  he  had  a  pistol  in  his  belt. 

Q.  Did  you  get  a  close  observation  of  the  pistol  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not.     I  only  saw  it  was  a  pistol. 

Q.  Will  you  state  if  you  heard  them  say  anything  at  that  time  to  each  other  ; 
and  if  so,  state  what? 

A.  1  heard  the  gentleman  with  the  scar  say  he  would  leave  for  Washington 
day  after  to  morrow.  The  other  one  said  he  was  going  to  Newburg,  or  New- 
bern,  that  night. 

Q.  Was  anything  else  said  that  night? 

A.  The  man  named  Johnson  Avas  very  angry  because  it  had  not  fallen  upon 
him  to  do  something  that  he  had  been  sent  as  a  messenger  to  direct  this  other 
man  to  do. 

Q.  Why  did  he  say  he  was  angry? 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  angry  He  said  he  wished  it  had  fallen  upon  him  instead 
of  on  this  other  man  to  whom  he  had  brought  the  message  to  go  to  Washington. 

Q.  Who  left  tbe  cars  first,  you  or  this  party? 

A.  They  both  left  before  I  did. 

Q.  Immediately  upon  their  leaving  the  car,  did  anything  happen,  or  was  your 
attention  directed  to  anything? 

A.  I  saw  them  exchanging  letters  in  the  cars.  I  had  letters  of  my  own  to 
post,  and  was  then  on  my  way  to  the  post  office.  As  I  was  leaving  the  car  my 
little  girl  picked  up  a  letter  at  the  edge  of  my  dress  and  gave  it  to  me,  with  the 
remark  that  I  liad  lost  one  of  my  letters. 

Q.  You  saw  her  pick  it  up  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     It  was  just  under  the  edge  of  my  dress. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  this  letter  was  handed  you  ? 

A.  I  took  it  without  noticing  that  it  was  not  one  of  my  own,  and  put  it  in  the 
pocket  of  my  coat  with  ray  other  letters,  and  kept  it  there  until  I  got  to  the 
brokers,  where  I  was  going  with  some  gold,  near  Nassau  street.  In  putting  my 
hands  into  my  pockets  to  get  some  money,  I  took  out  the  letters  that  I  had  in 
there.  I  instantly  saw  these  letters  in  a  blank  envelope,  and  knew  they  were 
not  mine.  Being  in  an  unsealed  envelope  I  opened  them  to  see  what  they  were, 
and  found  that  they  related  to  this  plot. 


354  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT. 

Q.  What  did  you  then  do  with  them  ? 

A.  I  saw  General  Butler's  name  was  mentioned  in  the  letter,  and  knowing 
very  few  persons  in  New  York,  having  been  there  but  a  short  time,  the  first 
thought  I  had  was  to  give  them  to  him.  As  his  name  was  mentioned  in  the 
letter,  I  thought  that  he  would  pay  more  attention  to  them  than  any  one  else. 
I  had  seen  by  the  newspapers  that  he  was  in  the  city  at  the  time.  I  went  up 
to  the  Hoffman  house,  where  he  had  been  stopping,  and  inquired  for  him. 

Q.  Did  you  find  him  there  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  had  left  that  morning.  I  then  asked  for  General  Scott.  He 
was  not  well,  but  said  he  would  see  me.  I  said  I  wanted  to  see  him  with  regard 
to  something  of  importance.  When  I  entered  the  room,  I  told  him  of  what  I 
had  found,  and  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  finding.  He  asked  me  to 
read  the  letters  to  him.  I  did  so,  and  he  said  he  thought  they  were  of  great 
importance.     It  was  nearly  dark  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  next  1 

A.  I  did  what  he  told  me — took  them  to  General  Dix. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  them  afterwards  until  I  saw  them  at  the  assassination  trial. 

Q.  You  were  a  witness  before  the  conspiracy  trials  at  the  arsenal  in  this  city  ? 

A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  These  letters  were  exhibited  to  you  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  on  the  envelope  ? 

A.  There  was  nothing  at  the  time. 

Q.  When  you  were  examined  as  a  witness,  before  the  military  commission, 
did  you  then  recog-nize  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  know  those  letters  if  you  were  to  see  them  now  1 

A.  I  think  I  would. 

Q.  Just  examine  these  and  state  if  they  are  the  letters.  (Handing  witness 
two  letters.) 

A.  They  look  as  if  they  were  the  same.  (After  further  examination,)  they  are 
the  same. 

The  District  Attorxey.  I  now  propose  to  offer  these  letters  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  object  to  them, as  having  no  connection  with  the  prisoner. 

The  CoiRT.  The  letters  will  be  read,  but  if  the  prosecution  fail  to  connect 
them  with  the  prisoner,  of  course  they  will  be  ruled  out. 

!Mr.  Bradlen'.  That  is,  after  the  poison  has  got  into  the  minds  of  the  jury 
we  will  have  to  do  all  we  can  to  get  it  out. 

Mr.  Pip:rrepo.\t.  There  will  be  no  poison  in  them  if  they  are  found  to  have 
no  connection  with  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradley  reserved  an  exception. 

The  letters  were  then  read  as  follows  : 

Dear  Louis:  The  time  has  at  last  come  that  we  have  all  so  wished  for,  and 
upon  you  everything  depends.  As  it  was  decided  before  you  left,  we  were  to 
cast  lots.  Accordingly  we  did  so,  and  you  are  to  be  the  Charlotte  Corday  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  When  you  remember  the  fearful,  solemn  vow  that  was 
taken  by  us,  you  will  feel  there  is  no  drawback.  Ahe  must  die,  and  now.  You 
can  choose  your  weapons — the  cup,  the  knife,  the  huUet.  The  cup  failed  us 
once,  and  might  again.  Johnson,  who  will  give  you  this,  has  been  like  an  en- 
raged demon  since  the  meeting,  because  it  has  not  fallen  upon  him  to  rid  the 
world  of  the  monster.  He  says  the  blood  of  his  grayliaired  father  and  his  noble 
brother  call  upon  him  for  revenge,  and  revenge  he  will  have  ;  if  he  cannot  wreak 
it  upon  the  fountain  head,  he  will  upon  some  of  the  blood-thirsty  generals. 
Butler  would  suit  him.  As  our  plans  were  all  concocted  and  well  arranged, 
we  separated;  and  as  I  am  writing — on  my  way  to  Detroit — I  will  only  say 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  355 

that  all  rests  upon  you.  You  know  where  to  find  your  friends.  Your  disguises 
are  so  perfect  and  complete  that,  without  one  knew  your  face,  no  police  tele- 
graphic despatch  would  catcli  you.  The  English  gentleman,  Harcourt,  must 
not  act  hastily.  Remember  he  has  ten  days.  Strike  for  your  home,  strike  for 
your  country ;  bide  your  time,  but  strike  sui'e.  Get  introduced,  congratulate 
him,  listen  to  his  stories — not  many  more  will  the  brute  tell  to  earthly  friends. 
Do  anything  but  fail,  and  meet  us  at  the  appointed  place  within  the  fortnight. 
Enclose  this  note,  together  with  one  of  poor  Leenea.  I  will  give  the  reason  for 
this  when  we  meet.  Return  by  Johnson.  I  wish  I  conhl  go  to  you,  but  duty 
calls  me  to  the  West.  You  will,  probably,  hear  from  me  in  Washington,  ban- 
ders is  doing  us  no  good  in  Canada. 

Believe  me,  your  brother  in  love, 

CHARLES  SELBY. 
St.  Louis,  October  21,  18C4. 

Dearest  Husband  :  Why  do  you  not  come  home?  You  left  me  for  ten 
days  only,  and  you  now  have  been  from  home  more  than  two  weeks.  In  that 
long  time  only  sent  me  one  short  note — a  few  cold  words,  and  a  clieck  for 
money,  which  I  did  not  require.  What  has  come  over  you  ?  Have  you  for- 
gotten your  wife  and  child  ?  Baby  calls  for  papa  till  my  heart  aches.  We  arc 
so  lonely  without  you.  I  have  written  to  you  again  and  again,  and,  as  a  last 
resource,  yesterday  wrote  to  Charlie,  begging  him  to  see  you  and  tell  you  to 
come  home.  I  am  so  ill — not  able  to  leave  my  room  ;  if  I  was,  I  would  go  to 
you  wherever  you  were,  if  in  this  world.  Mamma  says  I  must  not  write  any 
more,  as  I  am  too  weak.  Louis,  darling,  do  not  stay  away  any  longer  from 
your  heart-broken  wife. 

LEENEA. 

Cross  examination : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  you  now  reside  in  Canada  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 

A.  It  will  be  two  years  next  month  since  I  left  New  York. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Canada  when  summoned  to  come  here  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  who  served  the  process  ? 

A.  There  was  no  process  served.  There  was  a  gentleman  sent  there,  or,  at 
least,  the  United  States  consul  at  Toronto  came  to  me  in  Canada. 

Q.  No  subpojua  was  served  on  you  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Yi)U  were  not  required  by  the  process  of  this  court  to  come  ? 

A.  I  was  asked  to  come.  I  suppose  I  was  not  required  unless  I  was  willing 
to  come. 

Q.  State  as  to  whether  there  were  any  conditions  as  to  your  coming  ? 

A.  There  were  conditions  made  that  my  expenses  were  to  be  paid  here  and 
back ;  and  I  was  to  be  given  so  much  a  day  while  I  was  here.  . 

Q.  How  much  per  diem  1 

A.  Twenty  dollars.  I  thought  that  was  very  little,  because  I  left  my  family 
and  came  here. 

Q.  Did  any  one  come  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  my  husband. 

Q.  Were  his  expenses  also  paid  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  he  to  receive  any  compensation  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  anything  except  his  expenses. 


356  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

By  a  Juror : 
Q.  Do  you  raean  $20  a  day  as  the  amount  you  are  to  receive  1 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  $20  j^cf  diem. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  "NVliere  did  you  make  this  condition  ] 

A.  In  Canada. 

Q.  With  whom  ? 

A.  \Yith  Mr.  Thurston. 

Q.  Was  he  the  consul  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  left  home  at  a  great  deal  of  inconvenience  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  had  he  not  consented  to  give  me  that,  I  would  not  have  come. 

Q.  You  refused  to  come  unless  he  did  give  you  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Has  anything  been  said  about  that  arrangement  since  you  have  been 
here  ?     Has  it  been  confirmed  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  received  any  of  the  money. 

Henry  R.  McDonough — residence,  Washington — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.   State  what  your  occupation  was  in  December,  1864  ? 
A.  I  was  cashier  of  Adams's  Express  Company  in  this  city. 
Q.  State  whether  John  H.  Surratt  came  there  as  clerk  in  that  month  ? 
A.  He  did. 
Q.  At  what  date  ? 
A.  30th  December, 
Q.  Have  you  your  books  with  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  in  your  employment  ? 
A.  From  the  30th  of  December  until  the  13lh  of  January. 
Q.  About  two  weeks  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  how  long  a  time  was  he  paid  ? 
A.  For  two  days. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  come  for  the  rest  of  the  money  ? 
A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Was  he  discharged,  or  did  he  leave  ? 
Mr.  Bradley.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  facts  ? 
A.  Only  from  hearsay. 
Q.  He  didn't  come  back  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Did  he  ever  draw  any  money  ] 
A.  Only  for  the  two  days. 
Q.  What  fact  is  there  about  those  two  days  ? 
,   A.  I  paid  him  in  person  and  took  his  receipt  for  the  money. 
Q.  What  two  days  were  those  ? 
A.  The  30th  and  31st  of  December. 
Q.  Did  you  take  his  voucher  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  rate  was  he  to  be  paid  ? 
A.  Fifty  dollars  a  month. 
Q.  Did  he  sign  any  receipt  ? 
A.  He  did. 
Q.  Have  you  it  1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURE  ATT.  357 

A.  It  13  in  Baltimore. 

Q.  You  haven't  it  lure  ? 

A.  It  is  at  the  company's  office  there. 

Q.  Why  is  it  in  Baltimore  1 

A.  There  is  where  the  monthly  accoimts  are  settled  and  the  vouchers  filed. 

Q.  In  your  establishment  at  that  time,  who  was  the  person  to  whom  it  was 
necessary  to  make  application  for  leave  ] 

A.  The  agent. 

Q.  What  was  his  name  ? 

A.  C.  C.  Donn. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

A.  In  Philadelphia. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  lately  1 

A.  About  two  weeks  ago. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  the  prisoner? 

A.  Not  positively, 

Mr.  Bradley,  It  was  him  ;  there  is  no  doubt  about  it.  We  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  admitting  any  truths.  I  will  ask  the  witness  whether  there  is  anything 
on  the  books  to  show  when  he  left. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  (Thursday)  morning,  at  10 
o'clock. 

Thursday,  June  27,  1S67. 
The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 
William  R.  Coxoer  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q,  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A,  I  have  been  residing  all  my  life  in  St.  Albans,  Vermont. 

Q.  State  where  you  were  on  the  Tuesday  or  Wednesday  following  the  assas- 
sination, and  what  was  your  occupation  at  that  time, 

A,  I  Avas  in  St.  Albans,  Vermont,  and  was  keeping  a  saloon  there,  near  the 
depot. 

Q,  Have  you  seen  the  prisoner  since  you  have  been  in  the  city  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir.     I  believe  he  resembles  a  man  I  saw  in  St.  Albans. 

Q.  State  if  you  recognize  him  now, 

A.  His  nose,  eyes,  forehead,  height,  and  actions  appear  to  be  those  of  a  man 
I  saw  at  St  Albans. 

Q.  State  whether  he  was  alone,  or  whether  there  was  any  one  with  him  when 
you  saw  him  there, 

A.  He  had  a  man  in  his  company. 

Q,  Do  you  think  you  would  recognize  him  if  you  were  to  see  him  ? 

A.  I  think  not ;  I  did  not  take  as  much  notice  of  him  as  I  did  of  this  gentle- 
man. 

Q.  Why  was  your  attention  directed  more  particularly  to  him  ? 

A.  After  the  assassination,  I  thought  he  was  one  of  the  men.  I  was  after 
him,  and  tried  to  have  him  arrested.  I  crossed  his  path  some  two  or  three  times 
in  coming  from  the  depot  to  my  shop. 

Q,  State  about  what  time  that  was. 

A.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  between  eight  and  eleven  o'clock  in  the 
morning.     I  could  not  state  the  time, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  day  of  the  week  it  was  ? 

A.  I  could  not  state. 

Q,  You  have  stated  to  the  jury  that  you  were  after  this  person,  endeavoring 
to  have  him  arrested  as  one  whom  you  suspected  ;  did  you  speak  of  it  to  any 
one? 


358  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  did  not  at  that  time.  I  followed  him  to  thfi  depot  and  tried  to  find  an  offi- 
cer there.  From  that  I  staited  up  town  to  find  an  officer.  On  my  way  there, 
before  I  reached  the  American  Hotel,  I  came  across  Albert  Sowles. 

Q.  Who  is  Albert  Sowles  1 

A.  He  is  cashier  of  the  First  National  Bank. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  any  one  else  1 

A,  T  turned  about  with  him,  and  went  to  the  depot  and  pointed  out  this 
gentleman  to  him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  ^Ir.  Edward  A.  Sowles  about  that  time  ? 

A.  I  did.     I  asked  Mi-.  Sowles  if  any  one 

Mr.  Merrick.  Do  not  repeat  your  c  luversation  with  him. 

Witnp:s>^.  We  started  from  there  and  went  back  to  the  American  House.  I 
•went  with  him  as  far  as  the  jail  to  find  ;Ui  officer,  but  I  could  not  find  one,  and 
returned  back  in  front  of  the  American,  where  I  met  Albert  Sowles  and  his 
brother. 

Q.  What  is  his  brother's  name  ? 

A.  Edward  A.  Sowles,  a  lawyer. 

Q.  Did  you  succeed  in  arresting  this  man  ] 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Whereabouts  and  at  what  time  did  you  last  see  this  man  ? 

A.  The  lai^t  1  saw  of  him  was  at  the  depot,  wheu  1  returned  back  there. 

Q.   How  did  he  escape  you  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say.  I  could  get  no  officer.  I  went  to  the  cars,  went  to  the 
west  side  of  them,  and  round  on  the  east  side  of  them,  aud  through  the  cars,  but 
saw  this  gentleman  no  more. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  What  date  do  you  think  this  was  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Cannot  you  fix  the  day  of  the  week  ? 

A.  As  near  as  1  can  fix  it  it  was  some  three  or  four  day.s  after  T  h'eard  of  the 
assassination  of  the  President.  From  that  time  I  was  on  the  lookout ;  I  was 
near  the  depot. 

Q.  Were  you  there  when  the  cars  came  in  that  day  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say.  The  only  way  I  recollect  that  day  was  that  on  Tues- 
day morning  I  was  to  receive  oysters,  aud  I  have  no  doubt  that  I  was  there, 
but  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  You  cannot  tell  whether  you  went  to  the  cars  the  morning  you  saw  this 
man  or  notf 

A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  what  time  this  man  left  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q    Can  you  tidl  whether  there  was  any  connection   between   St.  Albans  and 
Montreal  immediately  on  the  arrival  of  the  cars  from  the  south  going  to  Mon 
treal  ? 

A.  When  the  cars  were  late 

Q.  My  question  was  whether  there  was  a  regular  connection  there  habitually  ? 

A.   I  cannot  tell  whether  there  was  or  U't. 

Q.  You  say  you  have  a  saloon  near  the  depot  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  first  door  east  of  the  depot. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  from  memory  whether  or  not  the  cars  that  came  up  from 
Burlington  on  the  east  side  of  the  lake  formed  a  connection  there  with  the  cars 
going  on  to  Montreal  ? 

A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  cannot  recollect  whether  passengers  coming  up  the  lake  to  St.  Albans 
staid  at  the  depot  or  went  on  1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  359 

A.  I  could  not  at  that  time. 

Q.  You  say  there  were  two  persons  together ;  did  they  continue  together  all 
the  time  ? 

A.  They  did  until  I  followed  them  into  the  depot. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  came  up  with  the  train  that  day  as  conductor  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  conductors  on  the  trains  running  up  and  down  at  St. 
Albans  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  were  the  conductors  at  that  time  1 

A.  Hobart  and  White  were,  and  there  were  a  number  of  others.     I  could 
not  name  the  others  now  who  ran  at  that  time. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  were  on  the  lookout,  on  the  arrival  of 
the  train,  for  the  assassins  of  the  President  1 

A.  I  was  looking  out  for  such  men.     I  was  near  by  the  depot,  and  for  that 
reason  my  attention  was  drawn  to  every  strangei'  that  arrived  at  the  place. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  tell  now  whether  the  train  stopped   there,  or  whether  it 
connected  and  went  on  towards  iMontreal  1 

A.  The  train  was  in  the  depot  when   I  followed  the  gentlemen  in,  headed 
north  towards  Montreal.   Whether  then;  was  an  engine  on  oi  not  1  could  not  say. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  the  train  arrive  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Where  did  these  gentlemen  come  from — in  what  direction  ? 

A.  Tlie  first  I  saw  of  them,  I  stood  in  my  shop  dour  and  saw  them  on  the 
sidewalk. 

Q.  Going  in  what  direction  ? 

A.  They  were  going  from  the  depot. 

Q.  There  were  two  of  them  coming,  and  no  more  ? 

A.  Two  and  no  more.     Theie  were  other  gentlemen  on  the  walk — plenty  of 
them  np  and  down  ;   they  were  going  right  side  by  side. 

Q.  Were  there  other  people  walking  close  by  them  1 

A.  No,  sir,  I  think  not;   they  were  together. 

Q.   Walking  in  the  same  direction  from  the  depot,  up  into  town  ? 

A.  They  were  walking  from  the  depot  towards  tlie  St.  Albans  House. 

Q.  Dili  y  .u  fillovv  them? 

A.  I  (lid  not  then. 

Q.  When  did  you  lose  sight  of  them? 

A.  I  turned ;  there  were  some  men  in  the  shop.     I  stood  in  the  door  as  they 
went  past,  but  went  back  into  the  shop. 

Q.  How  far  were  they  from  you  ? 

A.  Five  or  six  rods. 

Q.  A  rod  is  five  yards  and  a  little  more,  isn't  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  lost  sight  of  them  when  you  turned  to  go  into  the  shop  ;   when  did 
you  see  them  again  ? 

A.   I  got  rid  of  these  men  ;  1  cannot  say  how  long  it  was.     I  stood  again  in 
the  door,  and  they  passed  l)y  towards  the  depot. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  the  shop  V 

A.  I  could  not  say.     It  was  not  more  than  twenty  minutes  until  they  passed 
my  shop  going  towards  the  depot. 

Q.  Had  any  train  left  the  depot  in  the  mean  time  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  ? 

A.  I  locked  my  door  and  followed  them. 

Q.  Where  did  they  go  then  ? 


360  TEIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  They  went  towards  the  depot.     I  went  in  front  and  came  in  the  rear  of 
them.     As  they  passed  by  I  turned  about  and  came  in  the  rear  of  them. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  then  ? 

A.  They  took  a  circle  round  across  the  track  towards  the  depot  j  I  cut  across 
towards  the  depot  where  they  were  making  for. 

Q.  Did  you  come  up  with  them  again  ? 

A.  I  did  not  cross  their  path  again. 

Q.  Did  they  enter  the  depot  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  leave  them  ? 

A.  I  left  them  in  the  depot. 

Q.  When  you  returned  with  Mr.  Sowles,  where  did  you  see  them  ? 

A.  I  saw  them  in  the  depot. 

Q.  Had  any  train  left  in  the  mean  time  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  Now  describe  the  dress  of  the  two  men. 

A.  The  taller  one  had  light  pants,  light  vest,  and  a  dark  blue  or  black  coat ; 
a  black  fur  hat. 

Q.  You  mean  a  high-crowned  hat  ? 

A.  What  we   term   a    stove-pipe  hat.     The  short  man  had  light  clothes; 
sandy  complexion.     I  could  not  say  what  kind  of  a  hat. 

Q.  Were  all  his  clothes  light  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  coat,  vest,  and  pants. 

Q.  Could  you  say  whether  they  were  made  of  linen  or  woollen  stuflF? 

A.  I  cannot  say ;  I  did  not  take  so  much  notice  of  that  man. 

Q.  Had  you  had  any  description  of  any  of  these  men  who  were  supposed  to 
have  been  concerned  in  the  assassination  of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  had  not,  only  what  I  had  seen  in  the  papers ;  in  the  Burlington  Times. 

Q.  When  had  you  seen  that  ? 

A.  Previous  to  the  time  I  was  after  these  men. 

Q.  How  long  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  One  or  two  days  before  ? 

A.  I  am  unable  to  say  the  time  ;  it  might  be  three  or  four  days ;   I  could  not 
state  the  exact  time. 
By  a  Juror : 

Q.  Was  it  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  I  understood  you  three  or  four  days  after,  and  that  you  saw  it  in  the  Bur- 
lington Times. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  How  long  after  you  saw  the  description  in  the  Burlington  Times  before 
you  saw  these  men  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  One  or  two  days  ? 

A.  It  might  have  been  that  day,  and  it  might  have  been  the  day  before.  I 
took  the  Burlington  Times  at  my  shop  regularly,  and  I  must  have  had  that 
paper  that  morning. 

Q.  Then  how  long  had  you  been  on  the  lookout  for  men  going  up  there  1 
A.  It  could  not  have  been  long. 

Q.  If  you  received  the  Burlington  Times  that  day,  it  must  have  come  by 
that  train  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  361 

A.  Tt  must  have  come  bv  that  train. 

Q.  Tlien  you  were  standing  at  the  door  when  you  first  saw  these  men ;  how 
came  you  to  be  on  the  lookout  for  these  men  ? 

A.  I  tliink  I  saw  a  description  of  that  man  in  the  paper. 

Q    You  think  you  saw  it  that  morning  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  for  certain  that  it  was  that  morning;  it  is  my  impression  that 
it  was  that  morning. 

Q.  I  understand  you  you  got  the  paper  by  that  train,  and  you  cannot  tell  at 
what  hour  in  the  morning'  the  train  arrived  ? 

A.  The  morning  train  got  in  very  early.  I  used  to  come  to  my  shop  in  the 
morning  at  half-past  four  and  stay  until  the  trains  were  all  out,  and  then  I  would 
go  back  and  have  my  breakfast. 

Q.  Then  did  I  misunderstand  you  that  you  had  been  on  the  lookout  for  these 
men  from  the  time  yon  heard  of  the  death  of  the  President  ? 

A.  For  men. 

Q.  What  men  ? 

A.  Strangers  and  the  like  of  them. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  constant  stream  of  strangers  passing  throngh  St.  Albans  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  there  was  considerable  excitement  about  those  days. 

Q.  If  you  had  been  on  the  lookout  for  men,  and  did  not  get  that  description 
till  that  morning,  you  were  not  on  the  lookout  for  that  particular  man  1 

A.  No;  1  was  not  for  that  particular  man  I  saw  described  in  the  papers. 
When  I  saw  the  description  I  was  on  the  lookout,  and  as  quick  as  my  eye  struck 
tbat  man  I  made  up  my  mind  he  was  the  man. 

Q.  You  are  quite  confident  about  the  dress  of  the  tall  man  ? 

A.  I  am. 

By  a  Juror : 

Q.  Have  you  the  paper  which  contained  that  description  ? 
A.  It  was  here  yesterday ;  whether  it  has  gone  home  or  not  I  do  not  Icnow. 
Q.  Where  is  it  now  ? 
A.  I  think  it  is  on  its  way  home  ? 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  How  came  you  to  send  it  home  ? 
A.  It  was  not  in  my  possession. 
Q.  Who  sent  it  home  ?  ' 

A.  The  officer  who  had  it. 
Q.  Who  was  the  officer  ? 
A.   I  cannot  call  his  name  now. 
Q.  Whore  does  he  belong  ? 
A.  He  belongs  in  St.  Albans. 

Q.  You  live  tliere,  and  yet  you  cannot  tell  the  name  of  that  officer  ? 
A.  He  came  there  this  spring,  after  I  moved  away  fi-om  home. 
By  Mr.  PlERREPOiNT: 

Q.  Could  you  tell  his  name  if  you  were  to  hear  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  that  officer  ? 

A.  Last  night. 

Q.  Where  was  he  stopping  ? 

A.  He  stopped  at  the  Ebbitt  House. 

Q.  You  have  seen  him  this  morning  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  left  on  last  night's  train,  I  believe. 

Q.  And  you  allowed  him  to  take  that  paper  with  him  ? 

A.  He  had  it  in  his  possession,  and  took  it. 

24 


362  TKIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  Do  you  remembev  the  date  of  that  paper  1 
A.  The  18th  of  April.  1865. 
Q.  That  is  the  paper  you  saw  ? 
A.  That  is  the  description  of  the  man  I  saw. 
Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  it  is  that  paper  you  saw  on  the  ISth  ? 
A.  Yes.  it  was. 
Q.  You  recollect  it  ? 
A.  That  must  have  been  it. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  you  recollect  ?  , 

A.  That  must  be  the  date  of  the  paper.  I  saw  the  description  of  the  man  in 
that  paper,  and  I  picked  him  out  in  the  street  as  the  man. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  Who  did  you  understand  at  the  time  was  the  man  you  were  seeing  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.) 

The  Court.  I  suppose  the  question  is  proper,  if  it  is  put  in  the  proper  form. 

Witness.  The  man's  name  is  Booth. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  hope  the  court  will  caution  the  witness  not  to  answer  when 
he  is  stopped. 

Q.  Who  did  you  suppose  it  was  that  you  saw  at  that  time? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  irrelevant  ) 

The  Court  said  the  question  could  be  asked  whether  the  prisoner  was  the 
party  he  saw. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  My  question  was,  what  was  the  name  of  the  person  lie 
supposed  he  then  saw  from  the  description  ? 

Question  disallowed  in  that  shape. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  Booth  since? 

A.  I  never  saw  him. 

Q.  You  were  looking  for  a  man,  from  what  cause  ? 

A."  From  the  description  I  saAV  in  the  Burlington  Times. 

Q.  A  description  of  whom  1 

A.  I  cannot  say  now. 

Q.  Who  did  they  say  it  described  ? 

A.  I  could  not  recollect  who  it  was.     I  have  not  seen  the  paper  to  read  it. 

Q.  Who  did  you  speak  of  as  Booth  ? 

A.  That  was  a  description,  as  I  understood,  of  Booth. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Then  the  man  you  were  looking  for  was  Booth  ? 

A.  I  think  the  description  in  the  Burlington  Times — the  one  I  came  across — 
represented  Booth. 

Q.  That  is,  you  saw  the  description  of  Booth  in  the  Burlington  Times,  and 
you  were  on  the  lookout  for  Booth ;  you  saw  a  man  who  looked  like  Booth  and 
you  wanted  to  arrest  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  that  Booth  was  described  in  the  paper  you  saw  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  it  was  Booth  or  who  it  was. 

Edward  A.  Sowles  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  St.  Albans,  Vermont. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  gentleman  there  by  the  name  of  Conger,  a  carpenter  by 
occupation  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  calling  your  attention  to  any  person  about  the  18th 
of  April,  1865  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT.  363 

A.  My  attention  was  called  to  the  fact  that  there  were  two  persons,  or  one 
person  at  least,  who  was  supposed  to  have  been  connected  with  the  assassination 
of  the  President,  and  that  he  was  at  the  American  Hotel,  St.  Albans ;  in  short, 
he  was  supposed  to  be  Booth.  I  went  to  the  American  Hotel  with  my  brother, 
Albert  Sowles.  We  saw  two  persons  there  who  were  pointed  out  to  us  as  the 
supposed  persons. 

Q.  State  when  this  was. 

A.  This  was  on  the  Tuesday  following  the  assassination. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  month  ] 

A.  I  think  it  was  on  the  ISth. 

Q.  What  time  of  the  day  was  it  1 

A.  It  was  in  the  forenoon. 

Q.  You  cannot  state  more  definitel}^  the  time  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  state  the  hour.  I  passed  through  the  bar-room 
of  the  hotel.  They  were  then  in  the  bar-room.  About  the  same  time  I  learned 
there  was  a  photograph  of  this  supposed  person  in  the  hotel.  We  applied  to 
the  proprietor  of  the  hotel  and  he  showed  us  the  photograph. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Photograph  of  Booth  1 

A.  Supposed  to  have  been  Booth.  After  passing  through  that  room  and  see- 
ing the  photograph  we  came  out,  and  as  we  came  out  these  two  persons  passed 
out  and  went  down  by  the  depot,  which  is  in  what  is  called  Lake  street,  perhaps 
thirty  or  forty  rods  off.     During  this  time  we  met  Mr.  Conger. 

Mr.  Bradlev.  You  mean  Avhen  you  were  going  to  the  depot? 

A.  I  thiuk  we  had  seen  him  before.  I  would  not  be  positive  about  that.  He 
wanted  to  know  if  this  man  could  not  be  arrested.  We  went  into  the  depot,  and 
there  we  saw  these  two  persons  again.  While  we  were  there,  there  was  a  train 
of  cars  standing  upon  the  track  in  the  depot,  and  my  recollection  is  that  it  was 
about  ready  to  leave  for  the  north,  towards  Montreal.  After  remaining  there  a 
short  time,  we  returned.  On  my  return  I  went  to  the  First  National  Bank  with 
my  brother,  who  is  the  cashier.  I  might  say  that  1  did  not  see  that  person,  or 
these  persons,  after  that  time.  I  have  a  faint  recollection  that  they  took  the 
train,  but  I  would  not  be  certain  about  that. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Can  you  describe  how  these  persons  were  dressed? 

A.  There  was  a  tall  one  who  had  light  pants,  light  vest,  and,  I  should  say, 
dark  coat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  his  hat  ? 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  he  had  on  one  of  these  silk  hats. 

Q.  What  we  call  a  stove-pipe? 

A.  What  we  call  a  stove-pipe. 

Q.  Your  attention  has  been  called  to  the  prisoner;  has  he  been  pointed  out  to 
you? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  identify  him  as  the  man  you  saw  ? 

A.  All  I  can  say  about  that  is  that  this  person  had  black  hair,  rather  lor.g, 
and  black  moustache. 

Q.  Black  whiskers  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  is  there  that  fixes  this  as  the  ISth  rather  than  the  21st  of  the 
month  ? 

A.  I  can  tell  you  in  regard  to  that.  You  will  remember  that  I  stated  in  my 
examination  in  chief  that  I  looked  at  a  photograph.  I  had  a  conversation  at 
that  time  in  regard  to  the  manner  or  the  time  in  which  tliat  photograph  got 
there.  Persons  who  were  there  raised  the  question,  and  I  myself  expressed 
some  doubt,  about  its  getting  there  so  soon.     I  had  travelled  over  the  route 


364  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

from  Washington  to  St.  Albans  previous  to  that,  and  I  told  them  there  was  no 
trouble  in  its  getting  there  in  that  time.  They  said  the  government  would 
have  to  get  up  a  photograph.  My  reply  was  that  there  was  pufficient  time  to 
get  it  up  and  have  it  there  by  the  time  we  saw  it.  I  learned  at  the  same  time 
that  the  photograph  had  come  in  that  morning. 

Q.  Did  the  photograph  correspond  in  some  measure  with  the  man  you  were 
looking  at  ? 

A.  As  far  as  hair  and  whiskers  were  concerned  it  did. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  know  that  man  were  you  to  see  him  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  whether  I  would  know  him  or  not  with  the  black  hair  and 
whiskers.  If  you  ask  me  whether  I  could  recollect  him,  I  should  answer  I  do 
not  think  I  could. 

Q.  Perhaps  you  could  when  some  circumstances  were  brought  to  your  mind. 

A.  I  only  saw  him  a  short  time,  and  whenever  I  tried  to  see  him  full  in  the 
face  he  would  disappear. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  shall  direct  the  marshal  to  summon  you  as  a  witness  for 
the  defence. 

Witness.  I  think  it  would  be  useless  to  summon  me  upon  the  part  of  the 
defence  to  identify  the  person  who  was  there,  because  I  could  not  do  it.  I 
could  only  state  these  facts  in  regard  to  his  general  appearance. 

Q.  You  state  that  that  photograph  could  get  there  after  the  assassination 
from  Washington  city  ;   do  you  know  whether  it  came  by  mail,  or  how? 

A.  I  can  only  state  what  the  proprietor  of  the  hotel  said.  I  do  not  know 
except  what  he  told  me. 

Q.  In  calculation  of  the  time  the  photograph  would  take  coming  from  Wash- 
ington, what  time  did  you  start  it  from  Washington  relative  to  the  assassina- 
tion, which  took  place  Friday  night  about  ten  o'clock  1 

Witness.  The  question  would  arise  then  when  they  were  taken. 

Mr.  Merrick  You  say  you  hal  information  that  there  was  time  enough  for 
it  to  get  to  St.  Albans  ;  in  the  formation  of  that  opinion,  at  what  time  relative 
to  the  assassination  did  you  start  it  from  Washington  city  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  calculated  that ;  that  was  merely  a  conversation  that 
we  had.  I  could  say  that  if  it  left  here  Sunday  night  there  would  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  its  getting  there  at  that  time,  and  perhaps  not  if  it  left  on  Monday 
morning. 

Q.  You  say  you  do  not  know  how  it  got  there,  except  what  the  landlord  told 
you.     How  did  he  tell  you  it  got  there '{ 

Question  objected  to  by  the  district  attorney. 

Mr.  Bradley.  AVe  will  comii  directly  at  it,  then.  Was  it  not  brought  there 
by  one  of  the  detectives  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know,     lie  did  not  tell  me  that. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  stated  that  a  photograph  of  Booth,  or  one  claiming  to  be  such,  was 
there;   did  you  look  at  the  photograph  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  photograph  was  the  photograph  of  the  man  you  saw 
with  black  hair  ? 

A.  We  thought  we  could  see  some  resemblance. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  was  the  man  ? 

A.  We  thought  so ;  otherwise  we  should  not  have  made  any  effort  to  arrest 
him. 

Q.  After  you  saw  the  man  ? 

A.  I  had  doubts  all  the  time. 

Q.  You  stated  bis  hair  and  moustache  were  black  ;  did  you  observe  whether 
he  had  any  hair  on  his  chin  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT.  365 

A.  I  could  not  state  that. 

Q.  Had  lie  a  moustache? 

A.  He  had. 

Q.  He  had  no  side  whiskers  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Did  not  you  say  ha  had  whiskers  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did  ;  if  I  did,  I  wish  it  to  be  corrected.  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  his  having  whiskers. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Tell  the  jury  whether  this  black  moustache  and  black  hair 
you  saw  there  were  the  natural  color,  or  whether  they  were  colored. 

A.  I  could  not  say ;  they  were  very  black. 

Mrs.E.  W.  McClermont — residence,  Washington  city — sworn  and  examined  : 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Washington  ? 

A.  I  have  lived  in  Washington  most  of  my  life,  since  I  was  a  child. 

Q.  Were  you  living  in  the  city  in  1864  ? 

A.  I  was  ;  on  the  Island,  on  B  street. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  occurrence  at  that  time  which  had  any  connection 
with  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Please  state  what  it  is,  as  distinctly  as  you  can  ? 

A.  It  was  in  April,  1864,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  between  the  12th  and 
15th  of  April. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ? 

A.  I  came  from  the  Island,  and  was  standing  on  the  north  side  of  the  avenue, 
on  the  corner  of  Tenth  street,  waiting  for  a  car  to  go  to  Capitol  Hill. 

Q.  About  what  time  of  day  was  it  ? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  recollect,  in  the  forenoon. 

Q.  Now  tell  the  jury  what  you  saw  and  heard  ? 

A.  While  Avaiting  for  a  car,  there  were  two  men  standing  within  a  few  feet 
of  me,  who  seemed  to  be  impatiently  waiting  for  some  one. 

Q.  Please  state  what  was  said. 

A.  In  a  few  moments  these  were  joined  by  another  ;  I  turned  my  head  away 
and  do  not  know  whether  this  person  who  joined  them  came  down  Tenth  street 
or  not.  They  spoke  in  an  under  tone,  and  the  only  remark  I  heard,  in  speaking 
to  the  one  who  joined  them,  was  "  Jim."  Then  I  heard  the  President's  name 
mentioned;  one  of  the  men  spoke  of  his  coming  from  the  Soldier's  Home;  then 
1  heard  them  mention  the  word  "telescope  rifle."  One  of  these  answered  and 
said  "His  wife  and  child  will  be  along."  Another  replied,  "It  makes  no  differ- 
ence ;  if  necessary,  they  too  could  be  got  rid  of."  At  this  I  turned,  and  one 
of  them  saw  I  was  lookng  at  them ;  they  ceased  conversation  and  walked  on 
the  avenue. 

Q.  In  what  tone  was  the  conversation  ? 

A.  It  was  in  an  undertone;   I  could  just  get    the  words  in  monosyllables; 
they  were  not  standing  there  more  than  five  or  ten  minutes. 
Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  more  than  you  have  stated  1 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  wish  to  appear  to  be  listening — they  made  the  remarks, 
and  I  could  not  avoid  hearing  them. 

Q.  How  many  were  they  there  talking  together  ? 

A.  Three. 

Q.  The  third  one  came  down  what  street  and  joined  them  ? 

A.  Tenth  street,  I  believe. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  of  these  men  afterwards  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 


366  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURRATT. 

A.  At  tlie  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Now  state  who  of  these  men  you  saw  at  the  conspiracy  trial. 
.    A.  Herold  and  Atzerodt  were  the  two  men  who  were  standing  on  the  corner. 

Q.  And  the  one  that  came  down  Tenth  street,  did  you  see  him  at  the  trial  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Please  decribe  to  the  jury  the  man  who  came  down  Tenth  street.  Was 
he  an  old  man  or  a  young  man  1 

A.  He  was  a  young  man  ;  at  the  time  I  thought  I  had  seen  him  before,  but 
could  not  place  him. 

Q.  Was  he  tall  or  short  ? 

A.  Medium  height. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  ?     Was  he  well  dressed  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  He  was  very  genteelly  dressed.     I  do  not  recollect  much  about  his  dress. 

Q.  You  thought  you  had  seen  him  before,  do  you  know  where  you  had  seen 
him  before  ? 

A.  Not  then ;  I  could  not  place  him. 

Q.  Can  you  place  him  now  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  seen  him  perform  here,  and  also  at  Philadelphia. 

Q.  What  is  his  name  1 

A.  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Albert  Sowlrs,  cashier  First  National  Bank,  St.  Albans,  Vermont,  sworn 
and  examined. 

By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  did  you  reside  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  ]n  St.  Albans. 

Q.  Were  you  there  on  the  Tuesday  and  Wednesday  following  the  assassina- 
tion ] 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Conger,  who  just  left  the  stand  a  few  minutes  ago  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Describe,  if  you  please,  to  the  jury  what  occurred,  and  whether  or  not 
you  and  your  brother,  with  Mr.  Conger,  visited  the  depot.  State,  distinctly, 
the  circumstances  of  that  "^  isit  on  that  morning. 

A.  I  was  going  to  the  depot  that  morning,  and  was  stopped  by  Mr.  Conger, 
whe  informed  me 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  No  matter  what  he  said. 

Witness.  1  went  to  the  depot  with  Mr.  Conger;  it  must  have  been  three  or 
four  days  after  the  assassination ;  I  am  not  positive  about  the  time  of  day ;  it 
was  after  nine  o'clock;  I  go  to  the  bank  at  nine  o'clock.  We  went  to  the  depot 
and  a  man  supposed  to  be  Booth,  in  company  with  another,  was  pointed  out  to 
me;  these  men  immediately  left  tlie  depot  and  went  back  to  tlie  American 
House ;  we  followed  after,  went  into  the  American  House,  and  saw  these  men 
there  a  moment. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then? 

A.  I  remained  in  the  American  a  short  time  and  then  returned  to  the  depot. 
We  went  there  again,  and  then  I  saw  this  man  conversing  with  the  shorter  man 
on  the  steps  of  the  depot;  they  were  strangers  to  me. 

Q  Describe  the  size,  figure,  face,  and  dress  of  the  man  you  were  particularly 
looking  after  ? 

A.  He  had  on  light  pants,  light  vest;  he  had  a  tall  hat,  I  think. 

Q.  What  of  his  figure  1 

A.  He  was  a  tall  man,  quite  straight  and  erect.  He  would  weigh  about  160 
pounds,  I  should  judge. 

Q.  Describe  the  shape  and  appearance  of  his  foce. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  exactly. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  367 

Q.  As  neai"  as  you  can  ? 

A.  He  had  a  black  moustache ;  his  hair  was  dark. 
Q.  Where  did  you  last  see  him  1 
A.  1  saw  him  at  the  depot  that  day. 
Q.  You  lost  sight  of  him  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  he  had  whiskers  or  a  goatee, 

A.  He  had  no  whiskers,  and  I  think  he  had  no  beard  on  his  chia  ;  I  merely 
gave  a  glance  at  hira,  and  cannot  answer  positively. 

Q.  State  as  nearly  as  you  can  the  day  of  the  month  and  day  of  the  week. 

A.  I  cannot;  it  was  soon  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  How  many  days  ? 

A.  I  could  not  state  ;  three  or  four  days,  probably. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bkaoley  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  a  train  runs  north,  or  did  at  that  time,  on  Sunday? 

A.  I  am  not  aware  of  it. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  photograph  of  the  person  pointed  out  to  you  as  Booth  ? 

A.  I  saw  a  photograph  that  was  said  to  be  Booth's. 

Q.  After  seeing  that  photograph,  did  you  follow  this  man  you  suspected  to  be 
Booth  ? 

A.  We  went  to  the  depot  afterwards ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  man  preceding  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  went  to  the  depot ;  I  wanted  to  see  the  man  again. 

Q.  I  undei-stand  you  that  shortly  after  you  were  at  the  American  Hotel  you 
■went  down  to  the  depot;  did  you  see  the  photograph  at  the  American  Hotel  be- 
fore the  man  went  out,  or  just  about  the  time  he  went  out? 

A.  We  were  looking  at  the  photograph  in  a  room  when  this  man  came  in, 
and  the  photograph  was  immediately  laid  aside. 

Q.  And  you  followed  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  man  came  to  the  door  and  turned  around  and  went  back.  He 
went  off  to  the  depot  and  we  followed  him. 

Q.  Was  there  any  resemblance  between  that  man  and  the  photograph,  that 
induced  you  to  follow  him  ? 

A.  I  was  not  positive. 

Q.  Was  it  sufficient  to  induce  yon  to  follow  him  ? 

A.  I  wanted  another  look  at  him ;   I  did  not  get  a  full  front  view. 

Q.  How  soon  did  the  train  start  after  you  got  down  to  the  depot  'f 

A.  The  train  was  standing  in  the  depot,  and  I  left  the  train  standing  there. 

Q.  You  were  looking  for  a  man  you  supposed  to  be  one  of  the  assassins  of 
the  President,  and  saw  him  go  into  the  depot.     Did  you  see  him  go  into  a  car  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  go  off  in  the  train  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  suspicions  were  very  strong  ? 

A.  I  became  satisfied  it  was  not  Booth.  c 

Q.  How  did  you  become  satisfied  of  that  ? 

A,  In  my  own  mind  ;  we  were  receiving  despatches  that  Booth  was  being 
followed  ill  another  direction. 

Q.  And  that  satisfied  you  ? 

A.  That  was  one  thing. 

Q.  Did  you  yourself  receive  a  despatch,  or  was  it  published  at  the  telegraph 
office  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  office  with  despatches. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  telegraph  office  between  the  time  this  man  was  pointed 
out  and  the  time  he  left  ? 


368  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  It  was  in  my  way.     The  telegrapli  office  was  in  the  depot. 

Q.  Describe  that  depot  totlie  jury. 

A.  I  can  only  say  that  it  is  a  very  large  building. 

Q.  Closed  in  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  with  offices  ;  a  telegraph  office  and  express  office  in  it. 

(4.  What  companies  did  it  belong  to  ? 

A.  To  the  Vermont  Central  and  to  the  Vermont  and  Canada  Railroad  Compa- 
nies. 

Q.  I  suppose  as  a  business  man,  and  especially  as  the  cashier  of  a  bank,  you 
know  something  about  the  arrival  and  departure  of  the  trains.  Do  you  know 
at  what  time  the  train  came  in  at  that  time  1 

A.  It  was  a  morning  train.     I  do  not  know  the  hour. 

Q.  How  long  did  the  early  train  lie  there  ?  Did  it  go  directly  on  to  Mon- 
treal ? 

A.  It  usually  lies  there  a  sufficient  time  to  get  refreshments. 

Q.  Twenty  minutes  is  the  usual  time,  is  it  not  ?  j 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  the  usual  time. 

Q.  That  train  arrived  that  morning  and  stopped  twenty  minutes,  and  then 
went  on  to  Montreal  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  did,  if  it  was  on  time. 

Q.  Have  you  gone  to  Montreal  frequently  to  know  the  time  it  takes  to  run 
to  Montreal  from  there  ? 

A.  Two  or  three  hours.  j| 

Q.  Two  and  a  half  hours  ? 

A.  Perhaps  so. 

Q.  About  that  time  did  you  leave  St.  Albans  yourself  and  go  in  the  morning 
train  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  have  never  been  to  Montreal  by  the  morning  train. 

By  Mr.  PierrepoiXT  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  a  man  since  that  time  who  looked  like  the  man  you 
saw  that  morning  ? 

(Question  ol  jected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  as  not  in  response  to  anything  drawn 
out  by  cross-examination.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  will  put  it  in  chief.  : 

Mr.  ]^RADLEY.  The  court  will  decide  whether  that  can  be  done. 

The  Court.  The  prosecution  can  re-examine  its  own  witness,  which,  of 
course,  will  reopen  the  cross  examination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  only  wished  to  have  the  point  established — that  we  were 
entitled  to  cross-examine  him  in  reply. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  lately  any  man  Avho  resembles  the  man  you  then  saw  ? 

A.  1  think  1  see  a  man  who  resembles  him  in  this  court-room. 

Q.  Is  he  the  prisoner? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  By  nvhom  was  the  prisoner  pointed  out  to  you,  when,  and  where  ? 

A.  I  think  I  saw  him  come  into  the  court-room  Monday  morning 

Q.  By  whom  was  he  pointed  out,  and  with  whom  did  you  speak  about  it? 

A.  My  brother  and  Mr.  Conger  were  with  me  at  the  lime. 

(4.  Any  one  else  ? 

A.  I  think  not. 

Q.  He  was  not  pointed  out  to  you  in  this  court-room? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time  had  he  irona  on  his  wrists  in  the  custody  of  the  marshal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  your  attention  was  thus  drawn  to  him  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SUERATT.  369 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  the  points  of  resemblance  wbicli  strike  you. 

A.  His  general  appearance,  face,  and  eyes. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  us  you  had  so  slight  a  look  at  him  that  you  could  not 
tell  whether  it  was  Booth  or  not,  and  that  you  followed  him  because  you  wanted 
to  get  another  look  at  him  ? 

A.  Exactly.     I  had  seen  him  before. 

Q.  And  now  you  tell  us  you  can  identify  this  man  as  somewhat  like  the  mau 
you  saw  there  that  morning  I 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  resembles  him  in  height  and  size.  ** 

Q.  And  you  think  this  man  weighs  160  pounds  1 

A.  I  thought  he  did. 

Q.  How  about  the  man  now  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Did  not  you  have  a  good  look  at  him  on  his  way  over  to  the  court-house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Cannot  you  tell  better  now,  after  looking  at  him,  how  much  he  would 
weigh  than  you  could  that  man  at  St.  Albans  after  your  slight  look  at  him  ? 

A.   I  think  he  would  weigh  160  pounds  now. 

Louis  J.  Weichmax  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

\      Q.  State  your  full  name. 

[  A.  My  name  is  Louis  J.  Weichman.  Before  the  trial  of  the  assassins  I 
spelled  my  name  Wic.  I  gave  it  distinctly  to  the  reporters,  as  I  thought,  but 
they  spelled  it  Wei,  and  since  that  I  have  spelled  it  that  way. 

Mr.  PiEKREl'ONT.  It  is  uot  of  the  slightest  consequence  whether  the  i  gets 
before  the  e  or  after. 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A,  I  reside  at  Philadelphia  now. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar? 

A.   I  do,  very  well. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  the  first  time  you  ever  saw  him. 

A.  I  first  met  John  Harrison  Surratt,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  at  St.  Mary's 
College,  near  Ellicott's  Mills,  Howard  county,  Maryland,  in  September,  1859. 

Q.  I  will  pass  over  the  intermediate  time  and  come  down  to  1863.  Where 
were  you  then  living  1 

A.  In  the  latter  part  of  1862  I  accepted  a  position  as  teacher  in  St.  Matthew's 
Institute,  on  Nineteenth  street,  between  G  and  H. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  continue  as  teacher  in  that  institute  1 

A.  I  tauglit  in  that  institute  for  over  a  year — a  year  and  ten  days. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Surratt  in  that  year — 1863  ? 

A.  In  the  month  of  January,  1863, 1  for  the  first  time  met  Surratt  since  we 
left  college. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

A.  I  met  him  at  St.  Matthew's  Institute,  where  he  paid  me  a  visit. 

Q.   Did  he  visit  you  there  more  than  once  1 

A.  He  visited  me  there  frequently  during  the  years  lS63-"64. 

Q.  Did  you  return  his  visits  ? 

A.  I  visited  liis  house  at  Surrattsville  in  March,  1863,  and  there  made  the  ac- 
quaintance of  his  mother,  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Surratt,  and  his  sister  Anna. 

Q.  Who  presented  you  to  xMrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Her  son  John, 

Q.  How  far  was  that  house  from  this  house  ? 

A.  About  ten  miles  from  the  Navy  Yard  bridge. 

Q.  In  what  direction  from  this  house  ? 


370  TRIilL   OF   JOHN   U.   SURRATT. 

A.  I  believe  it  is  a  southeasterly  direction. 

Q.  What  was  the  place  you  visited  ? 

A.  The  place  was  called  Surrattsville. 

Q.  Was  there  a  village  there,  or  only  a  tavern  ? 

A.  The  place  was  called  Surrattsville  after  Surratt's  father.  It  was  a  house 
of  about  ten  rooms,  and  a  post  office  there. 

Q.  Was  it  a  tavern  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     There  was  a  sort  of  a  bar  attached  to  the  post  office. 

Q.  They^took  lodgers — entertained  travellers — did  they  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  father  then  living  ? 

A.  No,  air;  the  father  died  in  1862,  I  believe. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  visit  at  Surratt's  house  ? 

A.  I  visited  there  two  or  three  times  in  1863  and  1864.  I  wish  to  state  here 
that  during  my  first  visit  to  Mrs.  Surratt  in  1863,  in  March,  we  were  aroused 
one  night  by  a  very  delightful  serenade  by  the  Marine  band,  which  had  gone 
down  from  the  city  here. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  not  evidence. 

Witness.  I  intend  to  make  it  evidence.  I  intended  to  state  that  there  I 
met  David  E.  Hernld. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  need  not  state  about  the  Marine  band. 

Witness.  Very  well.  That  band  returned  in  the  morning,  and  David  E. 
Herold,  who  was  with  the  baud,  was  introduced  to  me  by  John  H.  SuiTatt. 

Q    Was  he  the  same  Herold  who  was  tried  as  one  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  The  same. 

Q.  At  that  time,  in  March,  1863,  did  you  meet  another  one  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  John  Surratt  ] 

A.  0,  I  saw  John  Surratt  very  frequently. 

Q.  Did  he  call  to  see  you  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  visited  me  from  time  to  time  in  '63  and  '64,  and  was  always 
treated  with  the  greatest  kindness. 

Q.  Will  you  state  when  Mrs.  Surratt  came  to  the  city  to  live  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  moved  to  her  house  in  the  city,  No.  541  H  street,  between 
Sixth  and  Seventh,  on  the  1st  of  November,  1864. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  visit  the  house  after  she  first  moved  there  on  the  Ist 
of  Novembei',  18641 

A.  I  commenced  boarding  there  the  1st  of  November,  1864;  or  I  should  say 
I  took  lodgings  there.     I  did  not  take  my  meals  there  till  the  1st  of  December. 

Q    Where  did  you  have  your  washing  done  ? 

A.  I  had  it  done  in  the  latter  part  of  my  stay  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  by  a 
colored  woman  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  hnnse. 

Q.  Who  was  the  colored  woman  ? 

A.  Her  name  was  Susan  Jackson.  She  did  my  washing  for  about  f  ur 
months  before  I  left. 

Q.  Where  did  you  have  it  done  before  the  last  four  months  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  exactly  where  the  colored  woman  who  did  my  washing 
lived,  and  I  do  not  know  her  name. 

Q.  You  had  it  done  out  of  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  during  the  mouths  of  November  and  December  it  was  done  out 
of  the  house,  and  during  the  months  of  January,  February,  March,  and  April  it 
was  done  in  the  house. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  the  last  person  in  the  house  who  did  it  ? 

A.  Susan  Jackson. 

Q.  She  was  the  last  one  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


I 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  '  371 

(This  examination  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  having  been  already  gone 
over.     Objection  sustained  by  the  court  as  a  waste  of  time.) 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state,  between  the  time  you  first  went  there  to  board  and 
the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  whether  you  boarded  at  any  other  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  Were  you  there  on  the  night  of  the  assassination  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  You  boarded  there  all  of  the  time  from  the  1st  of  December  until  the  as- 
sassination 1 

A.  Ye-!,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  when  and  who  you  first  saw  at  the  house  connected 
•with  this  conspiracy,  after  you  went  there  to  board,  excepting  John  H.  Surratt 
and  Mrs.  Surratt,  his  mother? 

A.  The  first  one  I  saw  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  connnected  with  the  conspiracy  was 
John  AVilkes  Booth. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  when  you  first  saw  John  Wilkes  Booth  at  the  house. 

Witness.  Do  you  wish  me  to  state  when  I  first  made  Bo.ith's  acquaintance  f 

Mr.  PiERREPO.XT.  I  wish  you  to  state  just  now  when  you  first  saw  him  at 
the  house. 

A.  I  first  saw  him  at  the  house  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  18C4,  or  iu 
the  early  part  of  January,  1865. 

Q.  That  is  the  first  time  you  saw  him  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  state  where  you  first  made  his  acquaintance. 

A.  In  the  winter  of  1864-'65,  I  was  invited  one  evening  by  Surratt  to  take 
a  walk  Avith  him  down  the  street.  We  left  the  house  and  walked  towards 
Seventh  street,  and  went  down  Seventh  street.  Just  as  we  were  opposite  Odd 
Fellows'  Hall  somebody  called,  "Surtatt,  Surratt."  I  said,  "'John,  there  is 
some  one  calling  you."  He  turned,  and  as  he  turned,  recognized  Dr.  Samuel 
Mudd,  an  acquaintance  of  his,  from  Charles  county,  Maryland.  He  shook 
hands  with  the  doctor,  and  then  introduced  him  to  me.  Dr.  Mudd  then  intro- 
duced his  companion,  as  Booth,  to  both  of  us.  After  the  etiquette  of  the  second 
on  such  occasions.  Booth  invited  both  of  us  to  his  room  at  the  National  Hotel. 
Arriving  at  the  room.  Booth  requested  us  to  be  seated,  rang  the  bell,  and  had 
the  servant  bring  drinks  and  segars  to  the  room  for  the  four  gentlemen  assem 
bled.  I  made  some  remark  about  the  appearance  of  the  room;  Booth  said  yes  ; 
it  was  a  room  tliat  had  been  occupied  by  a  member  of  Congress. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  number? 

A.  The  number  of  the  room  at  that  interview  was  84.  Booth  took  down  some 
congressional  documents  from  the  secretary,  and  remarked  what  a  mce  read  he 
would  have  to  himself  when  left  alone. 

Q.  Was  Dr.  Mudd  still  there  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir.  After  a  little  conversation  Dr.  Mudd  rose,  went  out  into  the 
entry  that  led  by  the  room,  and  called  out  Booth.  They  did  not  take  their  hats 
with  them;  they  did  not  go  down  stairs,  because  if  they  had  done  so  I  should 
have  heard  the  noise  of  their  footsteps.  After  five  or  six  minutes  they  returned 
to  the  room,  and  Jolm  Surratt  was  called  out.  The  three  then  remained  in  the 
entry  for  several  minutes,  and  came  back  again.  Dr.  Mudd  then  came  over  to 
me  where  I  was  sitting  and  remarked:  "  Weichman,"  said  he,  "  I  hope  you  will 
excuse  the  privacy  of  the  conversation ;  the  fact  is,  Mr.  Booth  lias  some  busines.*? 
with  me;  he  wishes  to  purchase  my  farm  in  the  country,  but  lie  does  not  want 
to  give  me  enough."  Booth  also  came  to  me  and  made  an  apology  to  the  same 
effect,  saying  be  did  intend  to  purchase  lands  in  the  lower  part  of  Maryland, 
and  that  he  wanted  to  buy  Dr.  Mudd's  farm.  I  was  then  seated  on  a  sufa  near 
the  window.  Booth,  Dr.  Mudd,  and  Surratt  then  seated  themselves  round  a 
centre  table  in  the  middle  of  the  room,  about  eight  feet  from  me.     They  then 


372  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

began  a  private  conversation,  audible  merely  as  to  sound.  Bootb  took  out  from 
hia  pocket  an  envelope,  and  made  marks  on  the  back  of  it,  and  Surratt  and 
Mudd  were  looking  intently  at  him.  From  the  motion  of  the  pencil  I  concluded 
that  the  marks  were  more  like  rnads  or  straight  lines  than  anything  else.  After 
about  twenty  minutes'  conversation  around  the  table,  they  rose,  and  Dr.  Mudd 
then  invited  us  around  to  the  Pennsylvania  Hotel,  where  he  was  stopping. 
Arriving  at  the  Pennsylvania  Hotel,  I  sat  down  on  a  settee  and  talked  with  Dr. 
Mudd.  Booth  and  Surratt  seated  themselves  around  the  hearth,  and  talked 
very  lively  there.  Booth  showing  him  letters,  and  Surratt  evincing  a  great  deal 
of  glee.  About  half  past  ten  Booth  got  up  and  bade  us  good  night.  "We  left 
a  short  time  after.  Dr.  Mudd  stating  that  he  was  going  to  leave  town  next  morn- 
ing. On  going  home,  John  Surratt  remarked  that  that  brilliant,  accomplished 
young  gentleman,  to  whom  I  had  been  introdnceil,  was  no  less  than  J.  Wilkes 
Booth,  the  actor.  When  I  first  met  Booth  on  Seventh  street,  I  did  not  know 
that  he  was  an  actor  at  all.  I  had  seen  him  several  times  on  the  stage,  but  I 
did  not  know  that  he  was  J.  Wilkes  Booth,  the  actor.  I  knew  when  he  told 
me  so.  He  said  that  Booth  wanted  to  purchase  Dr.  Mudd's  farm,  and  that 
he,  Surratt,  was  to  be  the  agent  for  the  purchase  of  that  farm  Some  weeks 
afterwards,  when  I  asked  Mrs.  Surratt  what  John  had  to  do  with  Dr.  Mudd's 
farm,  and  whether  he  had  made  himself  an  agent"  of  Booth,  she  said,  "O,  Dr. 
Mudd  and  the  people  of  Charles  are  getting  tired  of  Booth,  and  they  are  pushing 
him  off  on  Juhn." 

Q.  Up  to  the  time  of  this  interview,  had  you  met  Herold  except  down  in  the 
country  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  met  him  the  second  time  at  Piscataway  church,  in  the  summer 
of  1864. 

Q.  Where  is  Piscataway  church  ? 

A.  In  Prince  George's  county,  about ifive  miles  from  Surrattsville. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  ] 

A.  John  ."-unatt.     I  met  Herold  there  for  the  second  time. 

Q.  Did  anything  then  occur? 

A    No,  sir  ;  merely  a  casual  meeting  at  the  church,  nothing  more. 

Q.  Where  did  you  and  John  Surratt  go  after  this  meeting  with  Dr.  Mudd  and 
Booth  1 

A.  We  went  home. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  you  get  home? 

A.   We  got  home  in  the  evening  about  11  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  anything  further  occur  that  afternoon? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  We  will  now  come  down  to  1865.  Did  you  know  of  Surratt  being  in  any 
business? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  1864,  and  the  early  part  of  Jan- 
uary, 1865,  he  was  employed  by  Adams  Express  Company  in  this  city. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  there  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  he  was  there  about  ten  days. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  y;>u  anything  about  how  long? 

A.  I  believe  he  did  ;  ten  days  or  two  weeks. 

Q.  Did  be  leave  ? 

A.  Shortly  fifi.er  Booth's  introduction  to  him,  he  was  very  anxious  to  get  two 
weeks'  leave  of  absence  to  go  into  the  country.  There  being  at  that  time  a  great 
press  of  business  in  sending  off  soldiers'  boxes,  &c.,  they  refused  to  give  him 
that  leave.     He  told  me  that  he  took  French  leave. 

Q.  In  January,  1865,  did  you  know  where  he  went? 

A.  Well,  he  did  take  French  leave,  and  was  away  from  the  house  several  days. 
When  be  returned  I  asked  Lim  where  he  had  been.  His  answer  was,  to  Port 
Tobacco. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  373 

•I 

Q.  Do  yoii  know  how  he  went  away  at  that  time? 
A.  He  told  me  he  went  on  horseback. 
Q.  Do  you  know  how  he  returned  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  exactly. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  having  met  Mr.  Martin,  or  anybody 
else,  at  Port  Tobacco  at  tloat  time  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  of  meeting  any  one  from  Nti-w  York  there  ? 
A.  No,  eir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  horse  he  rode  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Look  at  the  book  now  shown  you,  (book  exhibited,)  and  tell  the  jury  what 
book  it  is. 

A.  This  is  the  register  of  the  Maltby  House,  Baltimore,  Maryland. 
Q.  Please  look  under  the  date   of  that  register  of  January   21,    lS6a,  and 
state  what  you  find  there. 

A.  1  find  my  own  name  and  the  name  of  J.  Harrison  Surratt  registered  there 
on  the  twenty-first  of  January,  1865,  as  occupying  a  room  No.  127. 
Q.  The  same  room  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Whose  name  is  first  entered  1 
A.  My  name. 

Q.  In  whose  handwriting  is  it  1 
A.  In  my  handwriting. 
Q.  Whose  name  is  next  entered? 
A.  Surratt's. 

Q.  Is  it  in  his  handwriting  ? 
A.   It  is. 

Q.  W^ill  you  state  whether  or  not  those  names  were  actually  entered  on  that 
day  by  you  and  feurratt  ? 
A.  They  were. 

Q.  Did  you  occupy  room  No.  127  ? 
A.  We  did. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  reach  Baltimore  1 

A.  On  tlie  evening  of  the  21st  of  January.     It  was  a  Saturday  evening. 
Q.  At  this  time  did  you  know  Payne  1 
A.  No,  sir  ;   I  had  never  met  him. 
Q.  Nor  Wood,  as  he  was  afterwards  called  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  occurred  while  you  were  there  ?  Give  it  in  its  order 
of  time.  Fi^^^t  I  will  ask  you  if  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  wh(  ther 
Payne  was  boarding  in  Baltimore  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge. 
(4.  Now  proceed  to  state  what  occurred  while  you  were  there. 
A.  On  the  morning  of  the  22d   Surratt  took  a  carvingi!  and  said  that  he  had 
$300  in  his  possession,  and  that  he  Avas  going  to  see  some  gentlemen. on  private 
business,  and  that  he  did  not  want  me  along. 

Q.  State  whether  from  the  time  you  first  knew  Surratt  until  this  date  he  had 
been  engaged  in  any  business,  except  during  the  brief  period  he  was  at  Adams'd 
express  ollice. 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  when  he  went  out  on  this  private  business,  as  he  states  ? 
A.  That  I  do  not  know.     He  took  the  carriage  and  rode  off".      I   told   him  I 
did  not  care  about  what  gentlemen  he  was  going  to  see ;  that  1  had  business  of 
my  own  to  transact. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  gone  1 


374  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

A.  He  was  at  the  hotel  to  dinner  at  3  o'clock. 

Q.  You  do  not  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  to  whose  house  he  went  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Snrratt  name  to  you  then,  or  at  any  subsequent  time,  the  name  of 
the  person  who  kept  the  house  where  he  went  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  he  came  back,  which  you  say  was  at  3  o'clock,  what  occurred  ? 

A.  I  returned  home  that  evejping ;  whether  he  returned  with  me  or  not  I  do 
not  know,  but  it  is  my  impression  that  he  did  not.  1  think  I  left  him  in  Balti- 
more. 

Q.  You  returned  that  evening  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  at  this  time,  where  was  your  room  in  the  house 
in  relation  to  Surratt's  room  ? 

A.  Well,  Suiratt  and  1  were  so  friendly  and  so  intimate  with  one  another 
that  Ave  occupied  the  same  room. 

Q.  How  about  the  bed  ? 

A.  We  occupied  the  same  bed. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Atzerodt? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  met  Atzerodt  about  four  weeks  after  Surratt's  first  introduction 
to  Booth,  and  about  a  Aveek  or  ten  days  after  Surratt  returned  from  the  country, 
in  the  early  part  of  January,  1865. 

Q.  From  Port  Tobacco  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  after  he  returned  from  Port  Tobacco  ? 

A.  About  a  week  or  ten  days,  in  the  latter  part  of  January. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  In  Mrs.  Surratt's  parlor ;  he  was  introduced  to  me  by  John  Surratt. 

Q.  How  is  that  name  pronounced  ? 

A.  I  call  it  Atzero. 

Q.  How  was  it  called  in  the  house  ? 

A.  Surratt  called  it  Atzerodt ;  the  young  ladies,  they  did  not  understand  his 
name,  and  knowing  that  he  came  from  Port  Tobacco,  they  called  him  "  Port  To- 
bacco." He  was  a  very  witty  sort  of  a  fellow,  and  I  supposed  they  named  him 
so  on  pni'pose. 

Q.  Then  he  was  sometimes  called  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  He  was  always  called  "  Port  Tobacco"  in  the  house,  except  by  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt when  she  spoke  to  him  personally. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  it  you  first  saw  him  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  parlor  ? 

A.  It  was  after  4  o'clock,  on  my  return  from  work. 

Q.  What  did  Surratt  say  when  he  presented  him  ? 

A.  He  merely  said,  "  Mr.  Weichniaun,  let  me  introduce  to  you  Mr.  Atzerodt." 
That  is  all.     Atzerodt  was  a  very  funny  sort  of  a  fellow. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  anything  that  he  said. 

Q.  Was  there  anytlting  more  said  by  Surratt  at  that  time  that  you  remember  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Atzerodt  say  anything  except  the  ordinary  courtesy  of  the  introduction  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  What  did  Atzerodt  do  then  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  he  visited  Surratt  very  frequently. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  there  this  time  ? 

A.  He  staid  there  perhaps  an  hour,  or  a  little  longer. 

Q.  State  whether  he  and  Surratt  on  this  occasion  Avent  out  together. 

A.  That  I  cannot  noAV  remember. 

Q.  Did  ihey  converse  together  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  375 

A.  0,  yes,  sir.  ' 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  the  parlor. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  converse  with  either  of  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Miss  Anna  Surratt  also,  and  Miss  Fitzpatrick. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  1  am  speaking  of  Mrs.  Mary  E.  Surratt. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cj,.  What  part  of  the  parlor  did  Surratt  and  Atzerodt  talk  in  1 

A.  I  really  cannot  remember  that. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  particular  said  on  this  occasion  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   nothing  at  all  that  1  remember. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  1 

A.  He  may  have  remained  in  the  house  an  hour. 

Q.  Did  he  go  into  any  other  room  than  the  parlor  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  know  with  whom  he  went  away  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  whether  he  left  tlie  house  with  Surratt  on  that  particular 
occasion  or  not. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  PiERREPoXT.  You  say  you  do  not  know  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  other  man  did  you  see  in  the  house  that  night  ?     If  not  any,  say  so. 

A.  None  at  all  except  Mr.  Holahan  ;  he  was  a  boarder  at  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

Q.  When  did  you  uext  see  Atzerodt  at  the  house  1 

A.  0,  I  saw  him  very  frequently  there  between  the  time  of  his  first  coming 
there  and  up  to  the  time  of  the  assassination  ;  perhaps  he  visited  there  alto- 
gether twenty  times. 

Q.  He  was  there,  then,  very  often  ? 

A.  0,  yes,  sir ;  very  often  indeed. 

Q.  That  is,  you  saw  him  there  very  often  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  during  what  hours  of  the  day  your  occupations  kept  you 
from  the  house  ? 

A.  From  nine  until  half  past  four. 

Q.  At  what  hours  in  the  day  or  at  night  were  you  in  the  habit^of  seeing 
Atzerodt  there  so  frequently  ? 

A.  I  generally  met  him  in  the  parlor  on  my  return  from  work  between  four 
and  five  or  five  and  six  o'clock. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing  there  1 

A.  Nothing  in  particular  that  I  know  of,  except  talking  with  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  Booth  also  come  there  ? 

A.  Booth  came  there  very  frequently. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  Surratt  going  anywhere  in  February  of  that  year  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  weut  to  New  York  in  the  early  part  of  February. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  weut  for  1  and  if  so,  what  ?  ■ 

A.  He  did  not  state  what  he  weut  for,  but  he  did  state  whom  he  saw  there. 
Q.  Who  was  that  ? 

A.  John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q.  What  more  did  he  tell  you  about  that  visit  to  New  York  when  he  saw 
John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Nothing,  except  saying  that  Booth  had  a  very  fine  parlor,  and  that  he  had 
been  introduced  to  Edwin  Booth. 
Q.  In  New  York  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  Payne  ? 
A.  I  met  Payne  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  in  the  latter  part  of  February,  1865 


376  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

for  the  first  time.  I  was  seated  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  parlor  one  evening  when  I 
heard  the  door-bell  ring.  I  went  to  the  door.  On  opening  it  I  saw  standing 
there  a  man,  tall,  with  very  black  hair,  very  black  eyes,  and  ruddy  counten- 
ance. He  asked  me  if  Mr.  Surratt  was  at  home.  I  said  he  was  not.  Then  he 
asked  me  if  Mrs.  Surratt  was  at  home.  I  said  she  was.  lie  then  expressed  a 
desire  to  see  Mrs.  Surratt.  I  inquired  his  name,  and  he  said  Mr.  Wood.  I 
went  into  the  parlor  and  told  Mrs.  Surratt  that  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Mr.  Wood  was  at  the  door  who  wished  to  see  her.  She  requested  me  to  intro- 
duce him.  I  did  introduce  him  to  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  rest  in  the  parlor  as  Mr. 
Wood.  I  had  never  met  him  before  this,  and  I  did  not  introduce  him  to  Mrs. 
Surratt  of  my  own  accord.     T  never  saw  the  man  before. 

Q.  What  did  Mrs.  Surratt  do  ? 

A.  Payne  approached  Mrs.  Surratt  and  talked  to  her.  I  do  not  know  what 
he  said.  She  came  to  me  in  a  few  moments  and  said  "  that  this  gentleman 
would  like  to  have  some  supper,  and  as  the  dining-room  below  was  disarranged, 
she  would  be  very  much  obliged  to  me  if  I  would  take  supper  up  to  him  n\  my 
own  room."  I  said  "  yes,"  and  I  did  take  supper  on  a  waiter  to  him  in  my  own 
room. 

Q.  At  this  time  did  Mrs.  Surratt  appear  to  know  him  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  He  has  told  us  all  he  knows  about  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.   Was  there  any  sign  of  recognition  ? 

A    No,  sir  ;  not  that  I  could  see. 

Q.  And  you  introduced  him  1  ' 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  occurred  after  the  supper  was  carried  up  to  your  room  1 

A.  I  sat  down  there  while  he  was  eating  supper  and  made  some  inquiries  of 
him,  asking  him  where  he  was  from,  &c.     He  said  he  was  from  Baltimore. 

Q.  In  what  story  was  this  room  of  yours  where  he  had  this  supper  ] 

A.  It  was  in  the  third  story. 

Q.  Front  or  rear  ? 

A.  Third  story,  back  room. 

Q.  What  furniture  was  there  in  the  room  ? 

A.  There  was  a  bed  there. 

Q.  The  bed  on  which  you  and  Surratt  slept  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir — a  table,  a  looking-glass,  and  three  trunks. 

Q.  It  was  a  bed-room  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  here  describe  that  house  ?  Describe  how  the  parlor  story  is  en- 
tered, and  how  the  basement  is  entered. 

A.  It  is  a  house  containing  ten  rooms.  The  two  rooms  on  the  first  story 
were  respectively  the  dining-room  and  the  kitchen. 

Q.  How  did  you  enter  them  I 

A,  The  dining-room  was  entered  from  the  street  There  is  a  passage  that 
leads  right  along  by  the  dining-room,  and  that  is  entered  from  the  street. 

Q.  What  is  the  passage  you  speak  of,  an  alley  way  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  a  passage  in  the  house — a  hall. 

Q.  Is  there  an  alley-way  on  the  lot  ? 

A.  There  is  an  alley-way  on  the  side  of  the  house  towards  Sixth  street. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiXT.  1  mean  that.     Is  it  on  the  east  side  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  enter  the  parlor  story  ? 

A.  The  parlor  story  is  entered  by  a  very  high  flight  of  stairs. 

Q.  Where  are  the  stairs  ? 

A.  Outside  on  the  street.  The  parlor  fronts  the  street,  and  Mrs.  Surratt's 
room  was  directly  back  of  the  parlor.  She  occupied  the  back  room  on  the  sec- 
ond story.     There  are  two  rooms  in  the  second,  and  three  in  the  third  story. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  377 

Q.  Your  room,  to  which  you  took  the  supper,  was  a  bed-room  in  the  third 
story  back  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  what  occurred  while  Payne  was  eating  his  supper  there. 

A.  I  asked  him  where  he  was  from.  He  said  Baltimore.  "  Any  business 
there  ?"  said  I.     He  said  :  "  I  am  a  clerk  in  the  china  store  of  Mr.  Parr." 

Q.  "What  more  ? 

A.  That  was  about  all.  He  ate  his  supper  and  then  said  he  would  like  to 
retire.     He  did  retire. 

Q.  To  what  room  ? 

A.  He  slept  in  the  attic.  He  did  not  then,  nor  did  he  ever,  sleep  in  my 
room. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  the  next  morning  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     When  I  arose  he  was  gone. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Payne  at  the  house  ? 

A.  I  saw  Payne  the  next  time  on  the  evening  of  the  13th  of  March,  1865. 
As  luck  would  have  it,  I  was  again  sitting  in  the  parlor  when  the  bell  rang.  I 
again  went  to  the  door.  I  met  the  same  man  whom  I  had  met  three  weeks  be- 
fore. His  former  visit,  however,  had  produced  so  little  impi'ession  on  me  that 
I  Lad  forgotten  him.  I  asked  him  his  name.  He  said  :  "  My  name  is  Mr. 
Payne."  He  again  asked  for  Mr.  Surratt,  but  Mr.  Surratt  was  not  at  home 
that  evening.  1  took  him  into  the  parlor,  where  were  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  la- 
dies, and  said  :  "  This  is  Mr.  Payne."  They  all  recognized  him  and  sat  down 
and  commenced  conversation.  In  the  course  of  the  conversation  one  of  the 
young  ladies  called  him  Mr.  Wood,  and  then  I  recollected  that  on  the  previous  oc- 
casion he  had  given  the  name  of  Wood.  On  this  occasion  he  was  no  longer  a 
clerk  in  a  china  store,  but  he  represented  himself  as  a  Baptist  preacher.  He 
wore  a  suit  of  gray  clothes,  and  a  black  neck-tie.  His  baggage  consisted  of 
two  linen  shirts  and  a  linen  coat.  The  following  day — I  believe  it  was  the  af- 
ternoon— Surratt  had  returned.     He  was  lying  on  the  bed  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Who  was  1 

A.  Surratt.  I  was  sitting  at  my  table  writing.  Payne  walks  in,  looks  at 
Surratt,  and  says  :  "  Is  this  Mr.  Surratt  1" 

Q.  You  were  in  your  room,  up  stairs  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  said,  "  It  is."  He  then  looked  at  me,  and  immediately  ob- 
served, "  I  would  like  to  talk  privately  to  Mr.  Surratt."  I  then  got  up  and 
went  out  of  the  room,  as  any  gentleman  would  have  done.  The  following  day, 
the  15th  March,  on  returning  to  my  room  from  my  work,  I  found  a  false  mous- 
tache on  my  table.  Not  thinking  much  about  it,  I  threw  it  into  a  toilet  box 
that  was  there  From  the  appearance  of  things  around  my  room,  I  knew  John 
Surratt  was  at  home.  I  then  went  up  into  the  back  attic,  and  just  as  I  opened 
the  door  I  saw  Surratt  and  I*ayne  seated  on  the  bed,  surrounded  by  spurs, 
bowie-knives,  and  revolvers.  They  instantly  threw  out  their  hands  as  if  they 
would  like  to  conceal  them.  When  they  saw  it  was  me  they  regained  their 
equanimity. 

Q.   Where  did  those  things  lie  ? 

A.  They  were  on  the  bed. 

Q.  State  Avhat  those  things  were. 

A.  Eight  spurs — bran  now  spurs — and  two  revolvers. 

Q.  How  were  they  as  to  being  new  ? 

A.  I  do  not  now  remember  whether  the  revolvers  were  new  or  not.  There 
were  two  revolvers,  however,  and  two  bowie-knives.  When  I  went  down  to 
dinner,  I  walked  into  the  parlor  and  told  Mrs.  Surratt  that  I  had  seen  John  and 
Payne  fencing  with  those  things  here,  and  added  :  "  Mrs.  Surratt,  I  do  not  like 
this." 

Q.  Did  you  tell  her  what  you  did  not  like  1 
25 


378  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

A.  Yep,  sir ;  about  Surratt  being  seen  with  bowie-kuives. 

Q,  Did  you  tell  her  what  you  had  seen  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  told  her  I  had  seen  them  on  the  bed  playing  with  those  toys. 
She  told  me  that  I  should  not  think  anything  of  it ;  that  I  knew  John  was  in 
the  habit  of  riding  into  the  country,  and  that  he  had  to  have  these  things  as  a 
means  of  protection.  We  went  down  to  dinner.  The  same  evening  Surratt 
showed  me  a  $10  ticket  for  a  private  box  at  the  theatre.  I  wrested  the  ticket 
from  him,  and  told  him  I  was  going  to  the  theatre.  "No,"  said  he,  "you  are 
not.  I  don't  want  you  to  go  to  the  theatre  this  evening,  for  private  reasons." 
He  then  struck  me  in  the  pit  of  the  stomach,  and  took  the  ticket  away 
from  me  again.  He  was  very  anxious  that  evening  to  take  the  smallest  ladies 
in  the  house. 

Q.  Did  he  take  any  1 

A.  He  asked  Miss  Dean  to  go,  and  she  consented. 

Q.  State  who  Miss  Dean  was. 

A.  Miss  Dean  was  a  little  girl  in  the  house  about  eleven  years  of  age.  He 
requested  Miss  Holahan,  daughter  of  the  Mr.  Holahan  to  whom  I  have  refer- 
red, to  go,  but  as  Miss  Holahan  was  then  preparing  for  her  first  communion  iu 
our  church,  she  refused. 

Q.  How  old  was  she  ? 

A.  Miss  Holahan,  I  suppose,  was  about  thirteen  years  of  age.  I  did  not  ask 
their  ages,  and  therefore  do  not  know  them  positively,  but  from  appearances 
such  was  my  judgment.  He  next  asked  Miss  Fitzpatrick  to  go,  and  she  con- 
sented. 

Q.  About  how  old  was  Miss  Fitzpatrick  at  that  time  ? 

A.  She  was  seventeen  at  least,  I  should  think.  Those  who  went  to  the 
theatre  were  Miss  Dean,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  Payne,  and  Surratt.  Before  they 
left  Surratt  came  and  borrowed  a  blue  military  cloak  that  I  had  at  that  time, 
and  said  that  he  wanted  Payne  to  wear  it. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Just  about  four  weeks.     It  was  on  the  15th  of  March. 

Q.  To  what  theatre  did  they  go  ? 

A.  To  Ford's  theatre.  That  night,  about  eleven  o'clock,  as  I  was  lying  in 
my  bed — I  had  retired — Surratt  and  Payne  came  into  the  room.  Surratt  took 
a  pack  of  playing  cards  which  were  on  the  mantle  of  my  room,  when  they  both 
left,  and  remained  out  all  night.  A  few  days  afterwards,  iu  conversation  Avith 
a  young  man  named  Brophy 

Mr.  Bradley.  Was  Surratt  present  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  In  this  conversation  with  this  young  man,  Surratt  stated  that 
he  had  spent  the  other  night,  meaning  the  15th  of  March,  Avith  a  party  of  socia- 
bles at  Gautier's  saloon,  and  that  he  would  like  to  introduce  us,  but  it  was  a 
private  club,  or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  When  was  it  you  saw  Surratt  and  Payne  again,  after  they  left  that  night, 
at  eleven  o'clock  1 

A.  The  next  day,  on  returning  from  my  oflfice. 

Q.  That  was  the  16th  of  March  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  them  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  O,  yes;  they  came  in  the  morning  about  seven  o'clock. 

Q.  Came  to  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  then  occurred. 

A.  They  simply  came  ;  nothing  occurred  other  than  their  entrance. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  to  your  office  that  day  ? 

A.  I  had  to  be  at  the  office  at  nine  o'clock,  and  I  generally  left  the  house  at 
a  quarter  past  or  half  past  eight. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  379 


AFTER\00\  SESSION. 

Louis  J.  Weichmax.     Examination  resumed. 
By  Mr.  PiERUEPONT: 

Q,  I  had  passed  to  the  15th  and  16th  of  March  in  my  last  inquiry.  I  now 
pass  back  to  the  3d  of  March.  Can  you  tell  what  occurred  on  the  3d  of  March, 
1865  ;  whether  you  saw  Surratt  and  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  ? 

A.  I  went  down  the  street  with  Surratt  in  the  evening  of  that  day.  At  that 
time  there  was  a  good  deal  of  serenading  around  town  on  account  of  the  proposed 
inauguration  of  the  President  on  the  following  day.  After  awhile  Surratt  left 
me,  and  I  went  to  hear  the  music. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  first  go  out  with  1 

A.  John  Sm-ratt. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  else  with  you  when  you  first  went  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  join  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  came  back  together  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  we  did  not  come  back  together ;  Surratt  left  me. 

Q.  Where  did  he  leave  you  1 

A.  On  Pennsylvania  avenue,  near  Eighth  street. 

Q.  Then  what  occurred  ? 

A.  When  I  returned  to  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  I  saw  John  Wilkes  Booth 
and  John  II.  Surratt  in  the  parlor  talking  together. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  you  return  1 

A.  After  7. 

Q.  Tiien  what  occurred  ? 

A.  Then  I  proposed  that  we  should  walk  up  to  the  Capitol.  Congress  was 
at  that  time  in  session.  Three  of  us  did  go — Surratt,  Booth,  and  myself.  When 
Ave  were  returning  from  the  Capitol  Surratt  and  1  left  Booth  at  the  corner  of 
Sixth  street  and  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  What  did  Surratt  then  do  1 

A.  We  went  home. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  again  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  and  Surratt  got  home,  what  ? 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  the  next  morning,  the  4th  March  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  evening  of  the  4th,  at  Mrs.  Surratt's.  He  was  in  the 
parlor  then.     I  did  not  see  him  during  the  day. 

Q.  Was  John  Surratt  at  home  that  evening  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  had  been  riding  round  town  all  day  with  the  procession;  he 
was  on  horseback. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Herold  that  evening  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  else  beside  Booth  and  Surratt  were  at  the  house  that  evening  1 

A.  No  one  that  I  know  of,  except  those  in  the  house. 

Q.  Up  to  this  date  had  you  seen  Herold  at  the  town  house  ? 

A.  I  m  't  Herold  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  once. 

Q.  When  was  that  1 

A.  In  March,  1865. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  ? 


380  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  After  4  o'clock.  I  generally  saw  these  people  there,  and  these  events 
that  I  narrate,  after  4  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  was  Herold  then  ? 

A.  He  was  in  my  room  talking  with  Atzerodt  and  John  Surratt. 

Q.  He  came  there  on  horseback.     Do  you  know  how  he  went  away  1 

A.  He  went  away  on  horseback.  He  had  left  his  horse  in  Mrs.  Surratt's 
yard. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Herold  at  the  house  1  Did  you  see  him  there  be- 
tween that  time  and  the  16th  of  March,  1865  1 

A.  I  saw  him  only  once  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  the  play  was  on  this  night  that  you  speak  of  Payne 
and  Surratt  going  to  the  theatre  with  these  young  girls  ? 

A.  Jane  Shore. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Booth  played  that  night  1 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  he  did  play  at  Ford's  theatre  next  after  that? 

A.  He  played  on  the  evening  of  the  18th  of  March. 

Q.  What  did  Booth  play  in  at  Ford's  theatre  on  the  18th  ? 

A.  He  took  the  part  of  Pescara  in  the  play  of  the  Apostate. 

Q.  Who  were  there  1 

A.  Surratt  invited  me  to  go  to  the  theatre  that  evening  with  him.  I  at  first 
refused,  but  finally  consented.  He  showed  me  a  pass  for  two,  signed  by  J. 
Wilkes  Booth.  As  we  went  down  Seventh  street,  near  the  corner  of  Seventh 
street  and  Pennsylvania  avenue,  we  met  Atzerodt.  He  was  also  going  to  the 
theatre.  At  the  theatre  we  met  David  E.  Herold  and  Mr.  John  T.  Holahan,  a 
fellow-boarder  at  Mrs.  Surratt's. 

Q.  Then  at  the  theatre  that  night  were  Surratt,  Herold,  Atzerodt,  and  your- 
self, and  Booth  playing. 

A.  Yes,  sir.     Mr.  Holahan  was  also  there. 

Q.  And  this  you  say  was  on  the  18th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  19th  did  anything  happen? 

A.  Nothing  in  particular  that  I  remember. 

Q.  On  the  20th  1 

A.  Surratt  was  walking  past  the  post  oflice  then.  I  met  him  as  I  was  going 
home.  He  went  to  the  post  ofiice  and  inquired  for  a  letter  addressed  to  him 
under  the  name  of  James  Sturdy. 

Q.  He  got  such  a  letter  did  he? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  he  show  it  to  you  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  it  came  from  ? 

A.  From  New  York. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  wrote  it  ? 

A.  The  letter  was  signed  "  Wood."     It  was  written  in  a  very  bad  hand. 

(Mr.  Bradley  objecting  to  any  reference  being  made  as  to  the  signature  of 
the  letter  or  its  contents,  the  witness  was  cautioned  by  the  court  not  to  speak  of 
the  contents  of  any  paper  unless  it  was  produced  and  proved,  nor  to  refer  to 
anything  said  by  any  person  other  than  some  of  the  parties  connected  with  this 
<x>u&piracy. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  Surratt  said  to  you  on  getting  this  letter  1 

A.  He  did  not  say  anything  that  I  now  remember  of.  He  merely  showed  me 
the  letter. 

Q.  Did  he  state  who  the  man  was,  or  anything  about  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  stated  it  was  "Wood,"  who  had  been  at  Mrs.  Surratt's 
house. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.   SURRATT.  381 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  thia  "  Wood"  was? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  more  that  he  told  you  on  that  subject  that  you 
remember  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Then  I  pass  from  that  to  the  following  day,  the  21st.  Did 
anything  occur  on  that  day  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  these  parties  on  the  21st? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Surratt? 

A.  If  he  was  at  home  at  the  time  I  must  have  seen  him. 

Q.  I  ask  what  your  memory  is  about  seeing  him  ? 

A.  I  have  no  memory  about  it. 

Q.  How  on  the  23d  of  March  ? 

A.  On  the  23d  Mrs.  Eliza  Holahan,  the  wife  of  J.  T.  Holahan,  who  boarded 
at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  came  to  the  office  where  I  was  employed  and  handed 
me  a  telegram  from  New  York. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  that  telegram  is  ? 

A.  The  last  that  I  saw  of  it,  it  was  in  the  possession  of  the  War  Depart-, 
ment. 

Mr.  Bradlkv.  Say  nothing  about  it  then. 

Q.  State  whether  this  is  the  telegram.  (Handing  witness  a  telegram  from 
New  York,  dated  March  23,  1865.) 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  it. 

The  telegram  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

'  New  York,  Marc/i  23,  1865. 

"  Received,  Washington,  March  — ,  1865,  ^—  o'clock. 

"  To WicKMAX,  Esq  ,  541  H  street : 

"  Tell  John  to  telegraph  number  and  street  at  once. 

"  J.  BOOTH." 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object  to  the  introduction  of  the  evidence,  because  there  is 
no  sort  of  proof  that  J.  Wilkes  Booth  wrote  the  telegram.  This  copy  cannot 
be  any  evidence  of  that  fact. 

Mr,  PiERUEPoNT.  This  is  the  one  received. 

The  Court.  It  cannot  be  any  evidence,  unless  connected  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Pierrepon't.  It  will  be  connected  in  a  few  seconds,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  what  I  am  waiting  for. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  got  this  telegram  ? 

A.  There  were  two  things  about  the  telegram  that  struck  my  attention.  My 
first  name  was  omitted,  and  my  last  name  was  not  spelt  correctly.  It  was  spelt 
"  Wickraan."  I  knew  of  no  party  in  New  York  who  could  send  me  a  telegram. 
I  had  no  acquaintances  there  1  opened  the  envelope,  and  I  saw  it  was  from 
Booth.  I  did  not  know  why  he  should  address  me  a  telegram.  I  showed  it  to 
several  of  the  clerks  in  the  office,  and  I  took  the  telegram  home  that  day  and 
showed  it  to  Surratt. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? 

A.  I  told  him  I  thought  it  was  intended  for  him.  I  asked  him  what 
number  and  street  were  meant.  The  telegram  reads,  "  Telegraph  number  and 
street  at  once."  He  says,  "  Don't  be  so  damned  inquisitive."  That  same 
evening  he  asked  me  to  walk  down  the  street  with  him.  We  went  as  far  as 
Tenth  and  F,  when  he  met  a  Miss  Anna  Ward.  He  then  walked  back  from 
Tenth  and  F  street  to  Ninth  and  F  streets  with  me,  and  went  into  the  Herndon 
House  and  called  for  Mrs.  Murray. 


382  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  You  went  in  with  him  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  she  came  he  desired  to  speak  to  her  privately  1 

A.  Mrs.  Murray  did  not  understand  him.  Then  Surratt  said,  "Perhaps  Miss 
Anna  Ward  has  spoken  to  you  about  this  room.  Did  she  not  speak  to  you 
about  engaging  a  room  for  a  delicate  gentleman  who  was  to  have  his  meals  sent 
up  to  his  room,  and  that  he  wanted  the  room  for  the  following  Monday,  which 
was  the  27th  of  March,  1865?"  Mrs.  Murray  recollected,  and  said  that  a  room 
had  been  engaged.  The  name  of  the  party  for  whom  the  room  was  engaged 
was  not  mentioned  by  myself,  by  Mrs.  Murray,  or  by  John  Surratt. 

Q.  What  more  occurred  in  the  Herndon  House  at  that  time  1 

A.  Nothing  more ;  we  then  left  and  returned  home.  After  I  got  to  my  room 
he  went  out  again. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  this  man  who  was  delicate  and  who  would 
want  his  meals  in  his  room  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  he  did  not  mention  his  name  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  him  further  than  you  have  mentioned  ? 

A.  I  think  he  stated  that  he  would  come  from  New  York;  that,  however,  is 
merely  an  impression  of  mine. 
'    Mr.  Bradley.  Let  us  have  facts,  not  impressions. 

Q.  When  you  say  your  impression  what  do  you  mean]  Do  you  mean  your 
best  recollection? 

A.  Not  exactly  a  recollection,  but  a  faint  idea. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  desire  anything  that  is  not  your  recollection  and 
your  best  recollection. 

Q.  What  more  was  done  ? 

A.  Nothing  more  that  evening  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  other  telegram? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  have  here  now  the  original  telegram,  a  copy  of  which 
was  introduced  and  read  a  few  moments  since. 

Q.  Is  that  (handing  telegram  to  witness)  Booth's  handwriting? 

A.  It  is. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Before  he  gives  an  opinion  let  us  ascertain  what  knowledge 
he  has  of  Booth's  handwriting? 

The  Court.  Let  him  state  his  opportunities  for  knowing  whether  it  is  his  or 
not. 

Mr.  PfERREPONT.  What  opportunities  have  you  had  for  knowing  anything 
about  Mr.  Booth's  handwriting? 

A.  I  saw,  previous  to  the  receipt  of  this  telegram,  several  cards  at  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt's  house  with  Booth's  name  on  them. 

Q.  Written  do  you  mean? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  him  write  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  write  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  write  between  the  time  I  made  his  acquaintance  and  the  time 
of  the  assassination. 

Q,  When  and  where  ? 

A.  I  cannot  be  so  positive  as  to  the  time  when,  but  I  have  seen  him  write 
between  those  two  dates. 

Q.  Write  what? 

A.  Well,  he  wrote  his  name  on  a  card. 

U.   Was  it  J.  Booth  ? 


I 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  383 

A.  J.  W.  Booth. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  write  his  name  J.  Booth  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  yon  mean  to  say  that  from  having  seen  him  write  some  other  name, 
and  that  on  cards,  you  are  able  to  identity  this  ? 

A.  1  have  seen  him  write  his  own  name,  and  tliis  corresponds  exactly  with 
what  I  saw  him  then  write;  I  can  tell  it  is  his  from  the  general  character  of  his 
writing,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  made  his  "  B." 

Q.  Where  did  you  ever  see  him  write  it  ] 

A.  At  the  National  Hotel  in  this  city. 

Q.  A  letter,  or  what  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  write  his  name. 

Q.  But  I  am  not  asking  you  about  his  name  because  you  saw  him  write  J. 
W.  Booth.     What  else  did  you  see  him  write  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  write  a  card  once  that  he  sent  to  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Pencil  or  not] 

A.  He  wrote  with  pencil. 

Q.  The  extent,  then,  of  your  knowledge  of  his  handwriting  is  that  you  once 
saw  him  write  a  card  with  pencil,  and  saw  him  write  his  name — how  often  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  write  it  except  on  that  one  card  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  He  gave  me  his  autograph  once. 

Q.  Was  that  J.  Booth  ? 

A.  No,  not  J.  Booth  ;  he  put  in  the  initial  of  his  middle  name. 

Q.  And  from  the  knowledge  of  his  handwriting  thus  gained  you  swear  posi- 
tively that  this  telegram  is  in  his  handwriting? 

A.  The  writing  corresponds  exactly.     There  is  the  same  "  B." 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  will  do;  let  it  go  in. 

Mr  PiKRREPOMT.  If  there  is  any  question  about  this  being  his  handwriting 
we  will  prove  it  beyond  a  doubt. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  talk  about  that  when  you  offer  the 
proof.     Your  honor  will  say  whether  that  is  evidence  to  go  to  the  jury. 

The  Court.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  satisfied  that  that  is  evidence  sufficient  to  let 
this  go  before  the  jury. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  This  was  on  the  23d  of  March,  I  think.  Now,  on  the 
24th  of  March  did  anything  occur  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  I  will  come  to  the  25th  of  March,  1865.  Did  you  see  John  Surratt 
on  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  As  I  went  to  breakfiist,  and  looked  out  of  the  dining-room 
window,  I  saw  John  Surratt,  his  mother,  and  Mrs.  Slater,  who  had  been  at  the 
house  previously,  in  a  carriage  containing  four  seats,  to  which  were  attached  a 
pair  of  white  horses. 

Q,.  Do  you  know  where  the  horses  came  from  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Mrs.  Surratt,  the  same  evening,  told  me  that  the  horses  had 
been  hired  from  Brooke  Stabler. 

Q.  Did  the  three  go  away  together  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  did  the  three  leave  ? 

A.  About  8  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Mrs.  Surratt  1 

A.  I  saw  her  the  same  evening. 

Q.  Where  ? 

A.  In  her  house, 


384  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  How  did  she  come  back  ? 

A.  She  returned  alone. 

Q.  Did  she  return  in  the  carriage,  or  in  some  other  way  ? 

A.  In  the  Port  Tobacco  stage — the  stage  that  runs  from  Bryantown,  or 
Port  Tobacco,  to  Washington,  and  delivers  passengers  at  the  Pennsylvania 
House. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Slater  and  John  Surratt  return  with  her  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  come  there  that  night  at  all  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  anything  that  occurred  with  them  ? 

A.  I  asked  her  where  John  had  gone.  She  said  he  had  gone  to  Richmond 
with  Mrs.  Slater,  to  get  a  clerkship. 

Q.  Did  you  see  those  horses  again  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  When? 

A.  I  saw  them  the  following  Sunday. 

Q.  How  long  after  ;  what  day  of  the  month  was  that  1 

A.  That  was  the  26th  day  of  March. 

Q.  The  next  day,  then  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  them  ;  who  had  them  ? 

A.  I  saw  them  in  front  of  Mrs.  Surratt 's  house.  They  were  driven  thereby 
a  Dr.  Wyvil. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  say  anything  to  you  about  them  ? 

A.  On  Saturday  evening,  as  I  was  leaving  the  house,  she  requested  me  to  go 
round  to  Brooke  Stabler's,  and  say  that  the  horses  would  not  be  returned  until  the 
following  Sunday,  the  26th  of  March.  I  made  some  objection.  "  O,"  says 
she,  "  Brooke  considers  John,  Herold  and  Atzerodt  a  party  of  gamblers  and 
sports,  and  I  want  him  to  think  so." 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Brooke  Stabler  ? 

A.  ]  did. 

Q.  When  the  horses  came  back,  what  was  done  with  them  1 

A.  They  were  returned  by  this  Dr.  Wyvil  to  Brooks  Stabler. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  say  anything  to  you  about  her  son  having  gone  to  Rich- 
mond with  Mrs.  Slater,  or  about  the  horses  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  remember  nothing  more  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  more  in  this  connection  on  this  day  ? 

A.  On  the  morning  of  the  26th  of  March,  as  1  was  going  to  church,  Mrs, 
Surratt  came  to  me. 

Q.  The  26th  Avas  Sunday,  was  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  She  came  to  me  and  asked  me  if  I  would  not  go  to  the  Na- 
tional Hotel  and  request  Mr.  Booth  to  come  and  see  her  in  the  afternoon.  As  I 
went  down  Sixth  street,  between  Pennsylvania  avenue  and  C  street,  I  met 
Atzerodt,  who  was  also  going  to  see  Booth. 

Q.  You  went  together,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  When  we  got  to  Booth's  room.  Booth  introduced  me  to  Mr.  J. 
B.  McCullough,  the  actor.  After  I  communicated  my  message,  I  left  and  went 
to  church. 

Q.  Wliat  did  you  tell  him  ? 

A.  I  told  him  that  Mrs.  Surratt  wanted  to  see  him  on  private  business.  That 
was  Mrs.  Surratt's  message.  Booth  did  come  that  afternoon.  Just  while  these 
horses  were  in  front  of  the  house,  Mrs.  Surratt  had  an  interview  with  him  alone 
near  the  head  of  the  kitchen  stairs. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  385 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  they  said  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  church  with  her  that  day  1 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  What  occurred  iu  going  or  coming  from  church  ? 
A.  Nothing  that  I  remember. 
Q.  Did  she  stop  at  any  house  ? 
A.  No,  pir,  not  on  the  26th  of  March. 

Q.  Did  she  at  any  time  with  you  in  coming  or  going  from  church  1 
A.  There  were  two  churches  that  she  was  in  the  habit  of  going  to.  One  was 
St  Aloysius  church,  at  the  other  end  of  the  town,  near  the  depot,  and  the  other 
was  St.  Patrick's  church.  On  this  Sunday,  however,  she  went  with  me  to  St. 
Aloysius  church.  When  she  went  to  church  with  me  on  Sunday,  she  always 
went  to  St  Aliiysius  church. 

Q.  Did  you  return  from  church  with  her  ] 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  stop  anywhere? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  going  from  St.  Aloysius  church. 

Q.  In  going  from  any  church  ;  I  do  not  knov/  the  names  of  the  churches 
here  ? 

A.  On  Sundays  she  went  to  St.  Aloysius.  During  Lent  there  were  evening 
services  at  St.  Patrick's  during  week-days,  and  she  went  there. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  her  to  church  at  any  time,  and  returning,  stop  anywhere  1 
I  do  not  remember  the  dates.     You  will  give  them. 

A.  Yes,  sir.     After  the  27th,  I  do  not  remember  the  particular  evening,  Anna 
Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  1,  had  been  to  St. 
Patrick's  church,  on  the  corner  of  Tenth  and  F  streets. 
Q.  What  occurred  in  returning  1 

A.  On  returning  she  stopped  at  the  Herndon  House,  at  the  corner  of  Ninth  and 
F  streets.  She  went  into  the  Herndon  House,  and  said  that  she  was  going  iu 
there  to  see  Payne. 

Q.  Mrs.  Surratt  said  that  ? 
A.  Yes.  sir. 

Q.  Tell  what  occurred  ? 
A.  She  did  go,  and  she  came  out. 
Q.  How  long  was  she  in  there? 
A.  Perhaps  twenty  minutes. 
Q.  Did  you  see  her  when  she  came  out  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  waiting  1 

A.  We  walked  down  Ninth  street  to  E  — the  party  did — and  down  E  to  Tenth  ; 
and  then  returned  to  the  corner  of  Ninth  and  F,  and  met  Mrs.  Surratt  just  as  she 
was  coming  out  of  the  Herndon  House. 
Q.  Did  she  join  you  1 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  went  home  with  us. 
Q.  To  her  house  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  to  you  ? 
A    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  her  that  day  on  that  subject  iu  any 
way? 

A.  During  that  week  I  was  one  day  going  down  Seventh  street,  and  again  near 
Seventh  street  and  Pennsylvania  avenue,  I  met  Atzerodt.  I  asked  Atzerodt  where 
he  was  going.     He  replied,  to   see  Payne.     Then  I  inquired,  "Is  it  Payne  who 


386  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

is  stopping  at  the  Herndon  House  ?"     His  answer  was,  ''  Yes."     I  had  always 
been  curious  to  know  who  that  man  was  who  was  stopping  there. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  who  it  was? 

A.  When  I  mentioned  to  her,  after  reaching  home,  that  the  man  Payne  who 
had  been  boarding  at  her  house  was  at  the  Herndon  House,  she  wanted  to  know 
how  I  knew  it.     I  just  told  her,  as  I  have  stated  here. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  her  ? 

A.  That  Atzerodt  told  me.  She  appeared  angry  that  Atzerodt  should  have 
said  so  to  me. 

Q.  State  in  what  way  she  indicated  her  anger. 

A.  Merely  by  her  countenance — her  expression. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiN'T.  I  come  down  now  to  the  month  of  April,  in  which  the 
assassination  happened.  Do  you  know  where  Mrs.  Surratt  was  on  the  1st  of 
April  ? 

A.  In  the  morning,  when  I  left  the  house,  she  was  sitting  at  the  breakfast 
table,  and  when  1  returned  in  the  evening  she  was  not  at  home. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  her  ? 

A.  She  came  home  a  short  time  afterwards  in  a  buggy  driven  by  her  brother, 
Mr.  Jenkins.     She  said  that  she  had  been  to  Surrattsville. 

Q.  Did  she  say  anything  more  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  1st  of  April,  or  the  evening  of  that  day,  did  you  see  either  of  these 
parties  at  the  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  the  4th  and  5th,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  saw  Atzerodt  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  the  2d  of  April.  She  had  again 
sent  me,  on  the  morning  of  the  2d  of  April,  to  the  National  Hotel  to  see  Booth  ; 
and  if  he  was  not  there,  to  go  and  see  Atzerodt,  and  tell  either  of  them  that  she 
wanted  to  see  him  that  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  National  Hotel,  but  Booth  was  not  there. 

Q.  Did  you  find  Atzerodt  1 

A.  I  then  went  to  the  Pennsylvania  House,  and  right  in  front  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania House  I  saw  Atzerodt  standing  and  holding  by  the  bridle  two  horses;  one 
was  a  very  small  one,  and  the  other  a  very  large  horse,  blind  of  one  eye.  Said 
I  to  him,  "Whose  horses  are  those?"  He  replied,  "One  is  mine  and  the  other 
is  Booth's."  I  then  communicated  ray  message  to  him,  and  he  requested  me  to 
get  on  one  of  the  horses  and  ride  back  with  him.  I  refused,  stating  that  I 
wished  to  go  to  church.  He  then  said  he  would  go  to  church  with  me.  Then 
I  mounted  the  horse,  and  Atzerodt  and  I  rode  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house.  Atze- 
rodt got  off  aud  went  in  to  Mrs.  Surratt's,  and  I  remained  outside  part  of  the 
time,  taking  care  of  the  horses.  That  same  afternoon  Mrs.  Surratt  said  to  me 
that  ]\Ir.  Jtmkins,  her  brother,  would  like  to  return  to  the  country,  and  that  she 
would  be  much  obliged  to  me  if  I  would  go  to  the  Pennsylvania  House  and  see  Atze- 
rodt, and  say  to  him  that  he  would  oblige  her  very  much  by  letting  Mr.  Jenkins 
have  one  of  John's  horses — meaning  her  son's  horses.  I  went  down  to  the 
Pennsylvania  House  that  afternoon  with  Mr.  Jenkins,  and  I  did  ask  Atzerodt 
for  one  of  these  horses  for  Mr.  Jenkins,  stating  to  him  my  message  as  I  had 
received  it.  His  reply  was  that  before  he  could  loan  Mr.  Jenkins  one  of  the 
horses  he  would  have  to  see  Mr.  Payne  about  it.  I  then  said  to  him  :  "  What 
has  Payne  to  do  witli  the  horses  ?  You  have  said  that  one  is  yours,  that  an- 
other is  Booth's,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  says  that  the  horses  are  John's."  John  Sur- 
ratt himself  had  told  me  that  they  were  his,  and  had  shown  me  at  one  time  a  re- 
ceipt for  the  livery  of  the  same  two  horses,  the  bill  amounting  to  S30. 

Q.  What  did  he  reply  ? 

A.  His  answer  was  that  Payne  had  a  heap  to  do  with  them.     Mr.  Jenkins, 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  387 

Atzerodt,  and  myself  then  walked  up  to  the  corner  of  Ninth  and  F  streets,  and 
Atzerodt  requested  us  to  remain  outside  and  he  would  go  in  and  see  about  the 
horses. 

Q.  What  house  was  that  ? 

A.  The  Herndon  House.  He  told  us  to  remain  outside  on  the  pavement. 
Mr.  Jenkins  and  I  remained  on  the  pavement  for  about  twenty  minutes. 
Atzerodt  came  out,  and  he  told  us  that  Mr.  Payne  would  not  consent  to 
the  loan  of  those  horses.  I  returned  to  Mrs  Surratt's  house  and  told  her 
what  Atzerodt  had  said.  She  said  she  thought  it  was  very  unkind  of  Mr.  At- 
zerodt ;  that  she  had  been  his  friend,  and  had  loaned  him  the  last  five  dollars  out 
of  her  pocket. 

Q.  What  more  occurred  ? 

A.  Nothing  more  on  that  day. 

Q.  Yon  didn't  get  the  horse? 

A.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Jenkins  walked  home  the  next  morning,  I  believe. 

Q.  This  was  the  2d  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  on  the  3d,  what  occuiTed  ? 

A.  On  the  3d  of  April,  after  the  excitement  and  noise  of  the  day,  I  was  seated 
in  Mrs.  Surratt's  parlor  in  the  evening,  on  the  sofa,  when,  about  half  past  six 
o'clock,  John  Surratt  walked  into  the  room.  He  was  very  neatly  dressed.  He 
had  on  a  new  pair  of  pants.  I  asked  him  where  he  had  been.  His  answer  was 
to  Richmond.  I  then  said,  "  Richmond  is  evacuated.  Did  you  not  hear  the 
news  1"  "  No,  it  is  not,"  he  said  ;  "  I  saw  Benjamin  and  Davis  in  Richmond, 
and  they  told  me  it  would  not  be  evacuated." 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  room  at  this  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  ? 

A.  She  merely  bade  him  good  evening. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  there  ? 

A.  He  went  up  into  my  room  and  put  on  some  clean  clothes. 

Q.  Did  he  go  with  you  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  he  went  up  before  me.  I  went  up  a  few  minutes  afterwards  ;  I 
think  he  called  me  up  stairs. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  room  with  him,  what  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  did  not  say  very  much.  He  said  that  he  wanted  to  exchange  forty 
dollars  in  gold.  He  did  exchange  this  forty  dollars  in  gold  for  forty  dollars  in 
greenbacks  He  showed  me  in  the  room  nine  or  eleven  twenty-dollar  gold 
pieces,  and  fifty  dollars  in  greenbacks. 

Mr.  Braoi.kv.  Before  he  made  the  exchange? 

A.  He  made  the  exchange  after  he  showed  me  the  gold.  He  showed  me  the 
gold  and  the  greenbacks  at  the  same  time. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  as  to  where  he  had  got  the  money  ? 

A.  I  did  not  ask  him  where  he  got  it.  I  expressed  a  sort  of  surprise.  He 
said  that  he  had  an  account  in  the  Bank  of  Washington,  but  he  did  not  say 
that  he  had  gotten  this  money  from  the  Bank  of  Washington. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  when  you  expressed  your  surprise? 

A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  money  that  he  had  ? 

A    No,  sir  ;  not  that  evening. 

Q.  Any  other  evening  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  all  the  money  you  saw  him  hare  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  had  seen  him  before.  He  always  appeared  to  have  plenty  of  money  in 
his  pockets — five  dollars  and  tea  dollars.  He  seemed  to  be  always  well  sup- 
plied. 


388  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Had  yoii  seen  him  with  any  quantity  of  money,  except  on  the  occasion 
of  which  you  have  just  spoken  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  got  this,  or  any  of  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.   What  time  in  the  evening;  of  the  3d  of  April,  did  he  leave  the  room  ? 

A.  He  left  there  about  7  o'clock. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  Between  half  past  six  and  half  past  seven  he  asked  me  to  go  down  the 
street  with  him  and  take  some  oysters.  He  was  dressed  in  gray  clothes,  with  a 
shawl  thrown  over  his  shoulders.  He  told  me  that  same  evening  that  he  was 
going  to  Montreal.  We  got  the  oysters  near  Four-and-a-half  street  and  Pennsyl- 
vania avenue. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  the  day  he  left  Richmond  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  After  eating  the  oysters,  what  occurred  ? 

A.  We  walked  back  as  far  as  the  Metropolitan  Hotel,  and  there  he  bade  me 
good  night.  He  said  he  would  correspond  with  me  when  he  got  to  Montreal. 
I  have  not  met  him  since,  except  to-day. 

Q.  On  the  5th  of  April,  what  occurred  ?     Did  you  observe  Booth  or  Herold  ? 

A.  Booth  was  at  the  house  between  the  3d  and  the  10th  of  April,  on  one  or 
two  occasions.     I  remember  on  one  of  those  occasions  a  letter  was  received. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  was  this  the  case  ? 

A.  About  7  or  8  o'clock. 

Q.  In  the  parlor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  walked  into  the  parlor.  Booth  was  sitting  on  the  sofa.  Mrs. 
Surratt  was  in  the  room,  and  a  young  lady;  and  Miss  Anna  Surratt  was  directly 
opposite  Booth.  I  sat  down  at  the  other  end  of  the  same  sofa  on  which  Booth 
was  sitting.  After  conversing  for  a  while  around  the  room.  Booth  got  up  and 
said,  "Miss  Ward,  will  you  please  let  me  see  the  address  of  that  lady  ?"  Miss 
Ward  advanced  to  meet  him  in  the  centre  of  the  room,  and  handed  him  a  letter. 
After  Booth  and  Miss  Ward  had  gone  out,  Anna  Surratt  got  up  and  said,  "  Mr. 
Weichmann,  here  is  a  letter  from  brother  John,"  and  read  the  letter.  No  lady's 
name  was  mentioned  in  it. 

Mr.  PiERKHPONT.  We  cannot  give  the  contents  until  we  produce  the  letter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  he  can  repeat  it,  I  have  no  sort  of  objection. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  want  him  to  repeat  it,  until  the  letter  is  in  court. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  became  of  that  letter  ? 

Witness.  I  do  not  know,  sir;  I  have  not  seen  it  since. 

Mr.  PiERREro.\T.  Well,  go  on. 

Witness.  On  another  occasion,  when  Booth  was  in  the  parlor,  I  commenced 
to  jest  him  about  the  fall  of  Richmond.  He  said  that  the  confederacy  was  not 
gone  up  yet,  and  shoAved  mc  one  of  the  Perrine  war  maps. 

Q.  Was  this  the  same  evening  on  which  you  had  seen  the  letter  1 

A.  No,  sir.     It  was  on  another  evening. 

Q.  What  are  those  maps  of  which  you  speak  ? 

A.  They  area  sort  of  war  maps — maps  of  the  southern  section  of  the  country. 
He  showed  me  the  diO'erent  routes  that  Lee  and  Johnston  were  going  to  take. 
Nothing  more  than  that. 

Q.  On  the  6th  of  April,  what  occurred  ? 

A.  Nothing  that  I  remember  of  now. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  go  into  the  country  on  the  6th  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  as  to  whether  Atzerodt,  between  the  first  and 
the  tenth,  used  to  come  there  as  well  as  Booth  1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  389 

A.  I  did  not  see  Atzerodt  at  Mrs.  Siirratt's  bouse  after  Sunday,  the  2d  of 
April. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Herold  there  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  Herold  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  after  March,  1865. 

Q.  We  now  come  to  the  11th,  just  before  the  assassination.  What  occurred 
ou  that  day,  as  you  remember? 

A.  On  the  evening  of  the  10th  Mrs.  Surratt  asked  me  if  I  would  not  be  kind 
enough  to  drive  her  into  the  country  ou  the  morning  of  the  11th  of  April.  I 
consented. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  was  that? 

A.  That  was  Tuesday. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  her  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  the  following  morning. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  ? 

A.  She  said  to  me,  "  Mr.  Weichmann,  won't  you  go  round  to  the  National  Hotel 
and  tell  Mr.  Booth  that  I  sent  you  for  his  horse  and  buggy,  and  desire  to  know 
whether  I  can  have  it."  I  did  go  to  the  National  Hotel,  and  found  Booth  in  his 
room.  I  communicated  my  message  just  as  Mrs.  Surratt  bad  told  me.  He 
said,  "  I  have  sold  the  horse  and  buggy,  but  here  are  ten  dollars  ;  go  you  and 
hire  one."  In  speaking  about  the  horses,  1  said  to  him,  "  I  thought  they  were 
John  Surratt's  horses."  "  No,"  says  he,  ''  they  are  my  horses."  I  left  the 
hotel,  and  went  to  Howard's  stable  and  hired  a  horse  and  buggy.  I  then  went 
to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house.  We  left  the  house  about  half  past  nine  o'clock.  As 
we  were  on  our  way  down  to  Surrattsville,  we  met  Mr.  John  M.  Lloyd. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

A.  I  met  him  just  outside  of  a  little  village  there.  The  name  of  the  village 
I  have  since  understood  to  be  Uniontown. 

Q.  Did  you  stop  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  she  told  Mr.  Lloyd  to  stop  too.  Mr.  Lloyd  got  out  of  bis 
carriage,  and  came  and  spoke  to  her.  She  leaned  her  head  out  of  the  window 
and  talked  to  him.  1  do  not  know  anything  of  the  conversation  that  passed 
between  them. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  hear  it  ? 

A.  In  the  first  place,  I  never  make  a  habit  of  listening  to  people ;  and  in  the 
second  place,  the  conversation  was  not  loud  enough  for  me  to  hear. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stop  there  ] 

A.  Several  minutes. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  this  is  the  Lloyd  who  kept  the  tavern  1 

A.  Yep,  sir.     He  had  rented  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  at  Suri-attsville. 

Q.  Will  yuu  state  in  what  tone  of  voice  this  conversation  between  Mr.  Lloyd 
and  Mrs  Surratt  was  carried  on  ? 

A.  It  was  in  that  kind  of  a  tone  that  I  did  not  hear. 

Q.  You  can  tell  whether  it  was  of  an  apparent  confidential  tone  in  lowness, 
or  whether  it  was  loud  and  free  ? 

A.  It  seemed  to  me  to  be  in  a  confidential  tone. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  the  words  '.' 

A.  No,  sir.     If  1  had  heard  them,  I  would  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  so. 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT.  You  did  not  hear  them,  and  therefore,  of  course,  you  can- 
not tell  what  they  wore. 

Mr.  Bradlby.  We  want  what  the  witness  recollects;  not  any  feelings,  or  im- 
pressions. 

Witness.  Mrs.  Surratt,  after  this,  had  a  conversation  in  a  louder  tone  with 
Mrs.  Offutt,  who  was  sitting  in  the  carriage. 
Q.  AVas  Lloyd  driving  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  had  been  driving. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  what  she  said  to  Mrs.  Offutt? 


390  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  it  1 

A.  Slie  was  speaking  of  a  man  by  the  name  of  Howell,  who  had  been  arrested 
on  the  24th  of  March  and  thrown  into  the  Old  Capitol  prison,  as  a  blockade 
runner. 

Q.  After  this  conversation  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  I  drove  to  the  tavern. 

Q.  What  occurred  there  ? 

A.  She  wanted  to  meet  a  Mr.  Nothey  there,  but  when  we  arrived  at  Surratts- 
ville,  at  half  past  12  m.,  Nothey  was  not  there,  and  she  had  a  messenger  des- 
patched for  him,  with  word  that  he  should  meet  her  there  at  2  o'clock.  We 
then  drove  further  on  to  Mr.  Bennett  Gwynn's,  where  we  took  dinner.  After 
dinner,  Mr.  Gwynn,  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  myself  returned  back  to  Surrattsville. 

Q.  What  occurred  there  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  went  into  the  parlor,  and  this  time  found  Mr.  Nothey  there. 
She  had  an  interview  with  him. 

Q.  Then  what  occurred  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  occurred.  I  was  not  in  the  parlor  when  they  had 
this  interview. 

Q.  I  only  ask  what  you  saw  and  heard? 

A.  After  they  had  concluded  that  business,  Mrs.  Surratt  got  into  the  buggy 
and  returned  to  town. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  get  back  to  town  ? 

A.  We  got  back  to  town  between  five  and  six  o'clock  ;  perhaps  not  until  six. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  that  night  with  any  of  these  parties  after  you  got  back  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  next  day,  Wednesday  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  Wednesday  evening  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  Thursday  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  On  Thursday  evening? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now  I  come  to  Friday  morning,  the  day  of  the  assassination ;  what  oc- 
curred on  that  morning  ? 

A.  On  Friday  morning  I  went  to  my  office  as  usual ;  arrived  there  at  nine 
o'clock.  This  was  Friday,  the  14th  of  April.  Was  at  the  otfice  untilabout 
half  past  ten,  when  an  order  cajne  from  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  effect  that 
those  clerks  under  his  charge  who  desired  to  attend  divine  service  that  day 
might  do  so. 

Q.  This  was  Good  Friday  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  left  the  office  and  went  directly  to  St.  i\Iatthew's  church,  at 
the  corner  of  15th  and  H  streets.  After  service  was  over,  about  a  quarter  of 
one  or  one  o'clock,  perhaps,  I  went  home  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house. 

Q.  At  what  time  1 

A.  I  got  home  at  one  o'clock  or  a  little  after  one.  I  took  some  lunch,  and 
then  went  up  to  my  room  and  sat  down  and  wrote  a  letter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Of  what  earthly  consequence  is  all  this  1 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT  (to  the  witness.)  That  is  not  important. 

Witness.  About  half  past  two  or  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes  after  two,  I 
heard  a  knock  at  my  room  door.  In  opening  the  door  I  saw  Mrs.  Surratt. 
She  stated  to  me  that  she  had  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Charles  Calvert  about 
her  property,  and  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  her  to  go  into  the  country  again 
and  see  Mr.  Nothey,  who  owed  her  $479  with  interest  on  the  same  for  thirteen 
years. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  391 

Q,  The  same  Mr.  Nothcy  with  whom  you  had  seen  her  on  the  1 1  th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  She  gave  me  a  ten-dollar  note  with  which  to  go  and  gi^t  ahorse 
and  buggy.  As  I  went  out  the  parlor  door,  John  Wilkes  Booth  came  in.  He 
ehook  hands  with  me  and  then  went  into  the  parlor.  I  then  went  to  Mr.  How- 
ard's stable  and  there  saw  Atzerodt,  who  was  endeavoring  to  hire  a  horse.  His 
request  was  not  complied  with.  He  could  not  get  one.  1  asked  him  what  he 
wanted  with  a  horse.  "0,"  he  says,  "  I  want  to  send  ofif  Payne."  I  then 
went  to  the  post  office  and  dropped  the  letter  I  had  written  and  returned  to  Mrs. 
Surratt's  house. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  you  get  the  buggy? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  back  with  the  buggy? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  went  up  into  my  room  for  a  minute  or  two,  and  as  I  passed 
the  parlor  door  I  saw  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Booth  in  conversation. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  was  this  ? 

A.  I  cannot  state  the  precise  hour.  It  was  between  twenty-five  minutes  past 
two,  and  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes  to  three.  Booth  was  standing  with  his 
back  against  the  mantel-piece  with  his  arm  resting  on  it,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  had 
her  back  towards  him. 

Q.  What  further  ? 

A.  I  went  down  to  the  buggy,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  came  down  in  a  few  moments, 
and  was  just  about  getting  into  the  buggy  when  she  said  :  "Wait,  Mr.  Weich- 
mann,  I  must  get  those  things  of  Booth's."  She  went  up  stairs  into  the  house, 
and  came  down  with  a  package  in  her  hand.  It  was  a  package  wrapped  up  in 
brown  paper,  tied  round  with  a  string,  I  believe,  and,  to  the  best  of  my  know- 
ledge, about  five  or  six  inches  in  diameter.  I  did  not  see  the  contents  of  the 
package. 

Q.  Did  you  see  what  was  done  with  it  ? 

A.  It  was  put  in  the  bottom  of  the  buggy.  Mrs.  Surratt  stated  that  it  was 
brittle.  She  said  even  that  it  was  glass,  and  was  afraid  of  its  being  wet.  I 
then  helped  her  into  the  buggy,  and  we  drove  off. 

Q.  On  the  way  down,  did  anything  occur  of  any  note  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  buggy  was  halted  once  near  a  blacksmith's  shop,  about  three 
miles  from  Washington,  on  the  road  to  Surrattsville.  There  were  some  pickets 
there  on  the  left-hand  side  of  the  road  near  the  blacksmith's  shop.  The  soldiers 
were  lolling  on  the  grass,  and  the  horses  were  grazing  about.  Mrs.  Surratt 
had  the  buggy  halted,  and  wanted  to  know  how  long  those  pickets  would  remain 
there.  She  was  informed  that  they  were  withdrawn  about  8  o'clock.  She  said: 
"I  am  glad  to  know  it,"  and  drove  off". 

Q.  Did  anything  further  occur  until  you  got  down  to  the  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

At  this  point  the  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  (Friday)  morning  at  10 
o'clock. 

Friday,  June  28,  18G7. 
The  court  met  at  ten  o'clock  a.  m. 

Examination  of  Lkwis  J.  Weichmann. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  When  the  court  adjourned  yostorday  you  were  at  the  point  of  progress 
towards  Surrattsville  where  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  met  the  pickets,  or  men  who 
spoke  of  pickets.     Will  you  proceed  to  state  what  occurred  after  that  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt's  manner  all  the  way  down  was  very  lively  and  cheerful. 
We  arrived  at  Surrattsville  about  half  past  four  or  five.  Mrs.  Surratt  got  out. 
She  took  out  of  the  buggy,  or  rather  I  took  out  and  gave  to  her,  the  package 
that  had  been  placed  in  the  bottom  of  the  buggy.     She  went  inside  into  the 


392  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT, 

parlor  of  Mr.  Lloyd's  house  there.  In  a  shoi-t  time  she  called  me  and  desired 
me  to  write  a  letter  for  her  to  Mr.  Nothe.  Would  you  like  to  have  the  contents 
of  that  letter  stated  1 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  you  have  not  the  letter  you  need  not  state  the  contents ; 
you  may,  however,  state  anything  Mrs.  Surratt  told  you. 

Witness.  She  told  me  to  write  a  letter  that  unless  Mr.  Nothe  came  forward 
and  paid  that  note  at   once  she  would  enter  suit  against  him  immediately. 

Q.  Did  you  write  a  letter  at  the  house  on  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  What  day  1 

A,  Fourteenth  of  April,  1865. 

Q.  The  day  the  President  was  murdered  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  happened  further  on  that  day  ? 

A.  She  desired  me  also  to  compute  the  interest  on  four  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-nine dollars  for  thirteen  years. 

Q.  Anything  further  after  that  at  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  I  sealed  the  letter  and  put  it  in  an  envelope ;  she  gave  the  letter  to  Mr. 
Gwiun  to  deliver  to  Mr.  Nothe ;  then  I  went  out  and  for  my  own  amusement 
drove  the  buggy  up  and  down  the  road  for  about  half  or  three-quarters  of  an 
hour. 

Q.  Were  you  there  when  Mr.  Lloyd  returned  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  returned  at  about  half-past  six,  just  as  Mrs.  Surratt  got  into 
the  buggy  ready  to  return  to  the  city.  I  saw  Mr.  Loyd  ;  he  recognized  me.  He 
noticed  that  the  front  spring  of  the  buggy  was  broken  ;  he  called  Mrs.  Surratt's 
attention  to  it,  and  she  told  him  to  get  a  little  piece  of  rope  and  tie  around  it, 
that  it  might  be  fixed  ;  he  did  so.  In  order  for  him  to  do  so  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  place  himself  between  the  horse  and  buggy. 

Q.  Did  he  go  there  and  do  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  he  fixed  it. 

Q.  Anything  further  connected  with  the  buggy  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Offutt  there  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.   What  hour  did  you  start  for  home  ? 

A.  We  left  Surrattsville  on  our  retui'n  home  about  half-past  six  in  the  evening. 

Q.  What  occurred  on  the  way  home  with  Mrs.  Sun-att ;  was  she  verv  cheer- 
ful on  the  way  returning  ? 

A.  On  our  way  home  she  said  she  was  very  anxious  to  be  home  at  nine 
o'clock  ;  that  she  was  to  meet  some  gentlemen  there. 

Q.  Did  she  state  who  ? 

A.  I  asked  her  who  it  was,  if  it  was  Booth.     She  made  no  reply. 

Q.  What  further  occurred  in  returning  ? 

A.  I  further  stated  something  about  Booth's  being  in  the  city  here  and  not 
acting ;  I  asked  her  why  he  was  not  acting.  Her  reply  was,  Booth  is  done 
acting  and  is  going  to  New  York  soon,  never  to  return.  She  turned  round  to  me 
and  asked  if  1  did  not  know  that,  or  if  I  did  not  know  that  Booth  was  crazy  on 
one  subject;  I  told  her  1  did  not.  What  that  one  subject  was  she  never  stated 
to  me.  On  our  return  we  met  the  pickets  I  had  seen  stationed  on  the 
left  side  of  the  road  as  we  went  down.  The  soldiers  at  this  time  were  on  their 
horses  returning  to  the  city  ;  our  buggy  passed  right  between  them.  I  should 
suppose  there  were  four  or  six  soldiers  on  horseback,  and  I  remember  distinctly 
that  the  buggy  passed  right  between  them. 

Q.  When  you  got  on  the  hill  in  front  of  the  city  did  anything  occur  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  just  about  two  miles  from  Washington  there  is  a  very  high  hill, 
which  commands  a  fine  view  of  the  city.     That  evening  of  the   14th  there  was 


TRIAL   OB'    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT.  393 

a  brilliaut  illumiuation  in  WasLington  on  account  of  the  restoration  of  the  flag 
over  Fort  Sumter.  I  made  some  remarks  to  Mrs.  Surratt,  saying  that  it  was 
better  for  the  country  that  peace  should  return  ;  she  said,  "  I  am  afraid  that  all 
this  rejoicing  will  be  turned  into  mourning  and  all  this  gladness  into  sorrow." 

Q.  We  now  come  down  to  the  time  you  reached  home. 

Witness.  I  wish  to  state  the  end  of  this  interview.  I  turned  round  to  her 
and  asked  what  she  meant.  She  said  that  after  sunshine  there  was  always  a 
storra  ;  that  the  people  were  too  proud  and  licentious,  and  that  God  would  pun- 
ish them. 

Q.  Anything  further  in  that  conversation  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  [  will  come  down  to  the  time  you  reached  home.  What  hour  was 
that  ? 

A.  Just  as  we  came  into  Pennsylvania  avenue,  near  the  Capitol,  we  saw  a 
torch-light  procession  coming  either  up  or  going  down  the  avenue.  The  horse 
shied  at  the  brilliaut  lights  and  we  were  compelled  to  turn  up  Second  street. 

Q.  After  turning  from  the  torch-light  procession,  where  did  you  then  go  ? 

A.  We  arrived  at  home  at  9  o'clock,  or  a  few  minutes  before  nine.  I  helped 
Mrs.  Surratt  to  get  out,  and  then  returned  the  buggy.  We  left  Surrattsville  at 
half  past  six,  and  it  takes  two  hours  or  two  hours  and  a  half  to  come  to  Washing- 
ton. I  returned  the  buggy  to  Howard's  stable,  which  was  right  back  of  Mrs. 
Surratt's  house  on  G  street.  I  then  immediately  returned  home.  I  then  went  down 
and  partook  of  some  supper.  Mrs.  Surratt  the  same  evening  showed  me  a  letter 
which  she  had  received  from  her  son.  While  I  was  sitting  there  eating  supper  with 
Miss  Fitzpatrick,  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Surratt,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  room,  I  heard 
some  one  very  rapidly  ascending  the  stairs. 

Q.  What  stairs? 

A.  The  front  stairs — the  stairs  leading  to  the  second  story.  Mrs.  Surratt, 
herself,  answered  the  bell. 

Q.  You  mean  the  stairs  outside  of  the  house? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Mrs.  Surratt  answered  the  bell — that  is,  she  went  to  the  door] 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  servant  remained  below.  The  footsteps  I  heard  going 
into  the  parlor. 

Q.  Were  they  the  footsteps  of  a  man  or  a  woman  I 

A.  The  footsteps  sounded  to  me  like  those  of  a  man,  made  by  boots.  A 
woman  generally  makes  a  very  light  tread,  and  would  ascend  stairs  without 
making  any  noise  at  all. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  in  the  parlor  ? 

A.  He  remained  there  about  five  minutes,  and  then  I  heard  the  same  foot- 
steps descending  the  stairs. 

Q.  What  occurred  with  Mrs.  Surratt  after  the  footsteps  descended  the  stairs  ; 
did  she  come  down  or  remain  up  1 

A.  She  remained  in  the  parlor.  After  supper  I  went  into  the  parlor,  and  the 
young  ladies  who  had  been  at  supper  with  me  also  came  into  the  parlor.  We 
sat  and  talked  there,  Mrs.  Surratt  once  asked  me  where  the  torch-light  proces- 
sion was  going  that  we  had  seen  on  the  avenue.  I  told  her  that  I  thought  it 
was  a  procession  of  arsenal  employes  going  to  serenade  the  President.  She  re- 
plied that  she  would  like  to  know  very  much,  as  she  Avas  interested  in  it.  As 
I  recollect  now,  her  manner  appeared  to  me  to  be  very  nervous,  and  very  restless. 
I  once  asked  her  what  was  the  matter.  She  said  she  did  not  feel  well.  She  had 
some  prayer  beads  in  her  hand — she  was  walking  up  and  down  the  room.  She 
once  asked  me  to  pray  for  her  intentions.  I  asked  her  what  her  intentions 
were.  She  said  I  never  prayed  for  any  one's  intentions  unless  I  knew  what 
they  were. 

Q.  Did  this  nervous  excitement  continue  ] 
26 


394  TEIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Anna  Surratt,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  and  I  were  jesting  and  laughing  a  good 
deal ;  Mrs.  Surratt  said  "Ob,  Mr.  Weiclimann,  you  and  the  girls  are  making  too 
much  noise  ;  it  is  time  for  you  to  be  ofF  to  bed  anyhow;"  and  in  a  playful  man- 
ner she  chased  us  out  of  the  parlor.  I  know  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  Miss  Jenkins, 
Miss  Surratt,  and  I  left  the  parlor  at  the  same  time,  leaving  Mrs.  Surrat  there 
alone.  I  retired  to  my  room  perhaps  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  before  10  o'clock. 
Miss  Jenkins  and  Miss  Surratt  retired  to  their  rooms  in  the  attic  about  the 
same  time,  and  bade  me  good  night  at  the  door  of  my  room. 

Q.  Were  their  rooms  over  yours  ] 

A.  They  were  not  exactly  over  mine,  but  in  the  story  above,  in  the  attic. 
Miss  Fitzpatrick  occupied  Mrs.  Surratt's  room.  Mrs  Surratt  occupied  the  room 
immediately  in  the  rear  of  the  parlor — in  other  words,  she  used  the  back  parlDr 
as  a  bed-room. 

Q.  Miss  Fitzpatrick  slept  in  that  room  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  with  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Did  anything  occur  in  regard  to  your  health  that  night  requiring  you  to 
get  up  ? 

A.  The  next  morning,  about  2  o'clock,  I  had  been  to  the  yard,  had  gotten  to 
my  room  again,  gone  to  bed,  and  was  just  about  falling  asleep,  when  I  heard 
the  door  bell  ring  very  violently.  It  rang  several  times  in  very  quick  succes- 
sion. There  were  only  two  gentlemen  in  the  house,  at  that  time,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, Mr.  Hollahan  and  myself.  I  drew  on  my  pants,  and,  with  my  night-shirt 
open  in  front,  barefoot,  I  went  down  to  the  front  door.  I  rapped  on  the  inside  of 
the  front  door  and  inquired  who  was  there.  "  Government  officers,"  was  the 
reply,  "come  to  search  the  house  for  J.  Wilkes  Booth  and  John  Surratt."^ 

Q.  What  did  you  say  ? 

A.  I  told  them  that  neither  of  them  were  at  home. 

Q.  What  occurred  further  ? 

A.  "Let  us  in  anyhow,"  said  they  ;  "we  want  to  searc5i  the  house." 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Was  this  on  the  morning  of  Saturday  I 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  about  two  or  half  past  two  on  the  morning  of  April  15.  1  then  told 
them  it  would  first  be  necessary  for  me  to  ask  Mrs.  Surratt^s  permission ;  in  order  ta 
do  so,  I  went  to  her  bed-room  door,  which  was  immediately  in  the  rear  of  the 
parlor,  and  rapped,  saying  ''Mrs.  Surratt,  here  are  government  officers  who  wish 
to  search  the  house."  "For  God's  sake  let  them  come  in,"  said  she;  "I  ex- 
pected the  house  would  be  searched." 

Q.  Did  you  let  them  in  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  let  them  in. 

Q.  Who  were  they  ? 

A.  There  were  about  six  or  eight  officers,  as  near  as  I  can  remember  now  ; 
I  remember  two  more  particularly,  Clarvoe  and  McDevitt,  who  belong  to  the 
city  Metropolitan  Police  here.  Some  men  had  been  stationed  outside  the  house 
in  the  alley-way,  and  some  had  gone  into  the  yai-d ;  Clarvoe,  McDevitt,  and  others 
immediately  proceeded  to  search  the  house.  They  first  went  to  the  attic,  where 
Miss  Jenkins  and  Miss  Surratt  were  sleeping.  I  did  not  go  up  there  with 
them. 

Q.  Y"ou  may  state  in  what  part  of  the  house  you  went  with  them  I 

A.  I  returned  to  my  room ;  the  detectives  also  came  to  my  room. 

Q.  Did  you  dress  yourself  that  morning. 

A.  Not  just  then ;  the  detectives  commenced  to  search  my  room,  they  looked  in 
the  closet,  looked  under  the  bed,  and  looked  all  around.  I  asked  them  for  God 
sake  tell  me  what  is  the  matter;  what  this  means;  what  means  searching  the 
house  so  early  in  the  morning,-  one  of  them  looked  at  me  and  said,  "  Do  you  pre- 
tend to  tell  me  you  do  not  know  what  happened  last  night."  I  said  1  did,  I  did 
not  know  what  had  happened. 


.  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  395 

Q.  Was  this  said  with  an  air  of  great  incredulity  to  you  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  the  air. 

(This  examination  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley — it  was  not  competent  to  ask 
what  air  the  officer  had. 

Objection  overruled.) 

Q.  State  what  was  the  manner  of  these  officers  in  making  this  inquiry  ? 

A.  They  appeared  to  be  astonished  that  I  had  not  known  what  had  trans- 
pired. Then  j\Ir.  Clarvoe  said,  "  I  will  tell  you,"  and  he  pulled  out  a  piece  of  a 
cravat;  there  was  blood  on  it.  Said  he,  "Do  you  see  that  blood  ?  That  is  Abraham 
Lincoln's  blood;  John  Wilkes  Booth  has  murdered  Abraham  Lincoln  and  John 
Surratt  has  assassinated  the  Secretary  of  State."  I  then  went  down  stairs  with 
Mr.  Clarvoe  and  Mr.  McDevitt.  Mrs.  Surratt  just  then  came  out  of  her  bed- 
room. I  said,  "What  do  you  think,  Mrs.  Surratt — Abraham  Lincoln  has  been 
murdered."  I  did  not  say  Abraham  Lincoln,  I  said, ''  President  Lincoln  has  been 
murdered  by  John  Wilkes  Booth,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  has  been  assassinated." 
I  did  not  bring  her  own  son's  name  out,  from  respect  to  her  feelings  ;  she  raised 
her  hands  and  exclaimed,  "My  God,  Mr.  Weichmann,  you  don't  tell  me  so." 
She  seemed  astonished  at  the  news.  At  this  time  Miss  Surratt  and  Miss  Jen- 
kins were  not  down  stairs. 

Q.  Did  they  come  down  afterwards  ? 

A.  After  the  detectives  had  gone  they  came  into  the  parlor ;  I  was  there, 
Miss  Jenkins  was  there,  Miss  Fitzpatrick  was  there,  Miss  Surratt  and  Mrs. 
Surratt  were  there. 

Q.  What  did  Mrs.  Surratt  then  say  ? 

A,  The  talk  was  about  the  murder  ;  every  one  in  the  room  had  been  told 
that  Booth  had  done  it ;  Anna  Surratt  commenced  to  weep  and  said,  "  Oh!  ma, 
all  this  will  bring  suspicion  on  our  house;  just  think  of  that  man  (we  were 
speaking  about  Booth  at  the  time)  having  been  here  an  hour  before  the  mur- 
der." "Anna,  come  what  will,"  she  replied, "  I  think  John  Wilkes  Booth  was  only 
an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Almighty  to  punish  this  proud  and  licentious 
people." 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  man  whose  footsteps  yon  have  mentioned] 

A.  No,  sir;  I  was  in  the  kitchen  at  the  time;  the  kitchen  was  down  stairs, 
and  it  was  simply  impossible  for  me  to  see  him. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  the  kitchen  ? 

A.  The  front  basement  room. 

Q.  Was  it  the  kitchen  or  dining  room. 

A.  The  dining  room ;  we  always  took  our  supper  in  the  dining  room  and  not 
in  the  kitchen  ;  there  are  two  rooms  in  the  basement,  the  front  room  is  the  din- 
ing room;  in  the  rear  is  the  kitchen. 

Q.  What  further  occurred  ? 

A.  I  returned  to  my  room  and  did  not  see  Mrs.  Surratt  again  till  morning. 

Q.  What  occurred  on  the  morning  of  the  15th. 

A.  Nothing  in  particular ;  I  do  not  think  I  have  any  more  evidence  on  that 
point;  I  was  at  breakfast  on  that  morning. 

Q.  Was  she  at  the  table  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  John  there  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  said  to  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Mr.  lloUahan  at  the  table  that  I  had 
my  suspicions  about  this  business,  and  I  was  going  to  the  government  and  state 
my  suspicions  about  it ;  state  who  I  had  ever  seen  in  Booth's  company  and  do 
all  I  could  to  bring  these  parties  to  justice. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  government  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley. 

The  Court.  He  may  state  whether  he  gave  information  to  the  government,  but 
not  detail  any  conversation  he  had. 


396  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT. 

Witness.  I  went  to  Superintendeut  Ricliards's  headquarters, 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  need  not  go  into  particulars ;  I  simply  want  to  know  if 
you  did  go  and  give  information. 

Q.  You  stated  that  Mr.  Hollahan  was  in  the  house  when  you  went  out  to 
give  information  to  the  government ;  what  did  you  or  Mr.  Hollahan  or  McDevitt 
or  any  of  these  parties  do  ? 

A.  Mr.  Hollahan  was  with  me  when  I  went  to  the  Metropolitan  Police  head- 
quarters and  stated  what  he  knew  to  McDevitt ;  we  went  to  the  lower  portion 
of  Maryland  that  day. 

Q.  Who  went  ? 

A.  McDevitt,  Bigley,  Clarvoe,  Mr.  Hollahan,  myself,  and  others. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  ? 

A.  We  first  went  to  Mrs.  Herold's  house. 

Q.  What  day  was  that  ? 

A.  That  was  the  15th. 

Q.  At  what  time  of  day  did  you  reach  Mrs.  Herold's  house  ? 

A.  That  morning  I  had  met  the  stable  keeper  from  whom  a  horse  had  heen 
hired  the  previous  night. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  hoped  the  witness  would  be  required  to  answer  the 
question  and  not  go  off  on  collateral  matters. 

Witness.  I  went  with  McDevitt  to  Mrs.  Herold's  house;  we  asked  Mrs.  Herold 
where  her  sou  was. 

Q.  Where  is  Mrs.  Herold's  house  ? 

A.  It  is  at  the  Navy  Yard ;  I  ascertained  from  Dr.  Walsh  where  the  house 
was ;  I  did  not  know  myself. 

Q.  From  Mrs.  Herold's  house  did  you  go  to  the  stable  you  have  spoken  of, 
or  did  you  go  before  ] 

A.  It  was  before. 

Q.  What  occurred  at  the  stable  1 

A.  I  met  a  man  by  the  name  of  Fletcher. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Do  not  state  anything  Fletcher  said. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  inqury  there  about  a  horse  1 

A.  1  did ;  I  asked  Fletcher  to  give  a  description  of  the  party  who  had  hired 
a  horse  from  him. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  a  reply  to  that  question. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  you  get  back  to  the  house  after  you  had  been 
at  Mrs.  Surratt's  1 

A.  We  went  to  the  lower  part  of  i\Iaryland  ;  I  was  never  at  Mrs.  Surratt's 
house  after  I  took  breakfast  there  that  morning. 

Q.  You  went  into  what  portion  of  Maryland  ? 

A.  We  went  away  down  as  far  as  Piscataway. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there? 

A.  We  returned  in  the  evening  and  searched  the  Pennsylvania  House,  where 
Atzerodt  had  been  stopping ;  this  was  on  the  evening  of  the  loth. 

Q.  Next  morning  where  were  you  1 

A.  It  was  then  suspected  that  Atzerodt  had  gone  to  Baltimore. 

Mr.  Bradley  requested  that  the  witness  be  instructed  to  answer  questions. 

The  Court  so  instructed  the  witness. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Baltimore  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  what? 

A.  To  see  if  Atzerodt  was  there. 

Q,  Who  went  ? 

A.  Mr.  Hollahan,  Mr.  Clarvoe,  Mr.  McDevitt,  and  myself. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  397 

Q.  "When  did  you,  Hollalian,  Clarvoe,  and  McDevitt  go  to  Baltimore  in  search 
of  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  Sunday,  the  16th  of  April. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  1  staid  until  the  following  Monday  morning,  and  reached  here  about  6 
o'clock  on  the  17th  of  April,  Monday.  I  took  an  early  train,  1  believe  the  half- 
past  four  train,  from  Baltimore. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  here  ? 

A.  Until  that  afternoon,  at  3  o'clock.  On  Monday  afternoon,  the  17th,  at 
3  o'clock,  we  started  for  Canada  in  pursuit  of  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  Who  went  ? 

A.  Mr.  Bigley,  Mr.  McDevitt,  Mr.  llollahan,  and  myself.  Clarvoe  also,  and 
Mr.  Keese  or  Neese,  I  forget  the  name,  started  with  us.  Clarvoe  did  not 
go  to  Canada. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  on  that  afternoon  of  the  17th  ] 

A.  We  reached  Philadelphia  about  11  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  Clarvoe  go  on  to  Philadelphia  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  leave  yoit  there  on  the  way  ? 

This  course  of  examination  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  leading. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  that  if  he  allowed  the  witness  to  go  on  his  own  way 
counsel  found  fault  that  he  went  into  collateral  matters ;  he  was  now  trying  to 
keep  him  to  the  point. 

Witness.  Chii'voe  there  arrested  a  man  by  name  of  Celestina. 

Q.  Did  Clarv^oe  or  not  go  on  with  you  1 

A.  He  returned  to  Washington  that  night. 

Q.  Who  went  on  to  New  York  ? 

A.  Neese,  Bigley,  HoUahan,  McDevitt,  and  myself. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  get  to  New  York  ? 

A.  We  reached  New  York  on  the  morning  of  the  19th  of  April. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  ? 

A.  That  was  Wednesday. 

Q.  Where  did  you  stop  '! 

A.  We  did  not  stop  at  any  place  ;   we  immediately  took  a  car. 

Q.  Where  did  you  take  breakfast  ? 

A.  We  got  our  breakfast  at  a  hotel ;   I  do  not  remember  the  name  of  it. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  take  the  cars  ? 

A.  We  took  the  cars  that  morning  at  6  o'clock. 

Q.  For  what  point  ? 

A.  We  took  the  Hudson  river  road  for  Montreal,  Canada,  leaving  New  York 
on  the  morning  of  the  19th.  We  travelled  all  that  day  and  reached  Burlington. 
Vermont,  on  the  evening  of  the  19th. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  you  got  to  Burlington  on  the  evening  of  the  19th? 

A.  We  registered  false  names  at  the  American  Hotel,  Burlington,  Vermont, 
and  left  the  next  morning. 

Q.  State  the  false  names  which  you  entered  ] 

A.  I  was  Mr.  Thompson. 

Q.  What  name  did  Hollahan  enter  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  of  the  other  false  names  ? 

A.  Bigley  was  Porter. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  name  McDevitt  entered  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  remember  his  nor  Hollahan's. 

Q.  Now,  can  you  tell  the  false  names  each  entered  by  referring  to  this  register? 
(Register  produced.) 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  recognize  my  handwriting  there.     We  staid  there  all 


398  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

night.  I  do  not  know  of  my  own  knowledge  that  it  was  the  American  House. 
I  inquired  the  other  day  what  the  name  of  the  white  building  was,  and  they 
told  me  it  was  the  American  House. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Inquired  of  who  ] 

A.  A  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Blinn, 

Q.  After  you  registered  your  names  there  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  We  staid  there  that  night,  and  the  next  morning  started  for  Montreal, 
reaching  there  about  noon.  We  registered  our  names  at  Burlington  on  the 
evening  of  the  19th,  and  left  for  Montreal  on  the  20th. 

Q.  Did  you  sleep  at  the  hotel  on  the  night  of  the  19th? 

A.  We  slept  at  a  hotel,  and  on  the  next  morning  started, 

Q.  Give  a  description  of  the  building  you  slept  in. 

A.  It  was  a  square  white  building. 

Q.  You  say  you  did  not  know  the  name  then  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  name  now  of  my  own  knowledge. 

Q.  What  time  on  the  morning  of  the  20th  did  you  leave  the  hotel  ? 

A.  We  took  the  cars  I  suppose  that  morning  between  5  and  7  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  all  leave  together  ? 

A    We  left  together. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  that  day,  the  20th  1 

A.  AVe  went  to  Montreal. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  in  Montreal  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  left  there  that  afternoon  or  the  nest  evening  for 
Quebec  with  Mr.  Bigley, 

Q.  Did  anybody  else  go  with  you  to  Quebec? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Whei-e  did  you  leave  Hollahan  and  McDevitt  ? 

A.  At  Montreal. 

Q.  At  what  house,  do  you  remember  ? 

A,  I  do  not  remember  the  name  of  the  hotel  now.  It  is  one  of  the  small 
hotels  in  Montreal.  I  think  it  was  the  St.  James.  We  stopped  at  the  Ottawa 
House  for  half  the  day. 

Q.  From  Quebec  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  We  returned  direct  to  Montreal. 

Q.  From  there  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Then  we  returned  to  the  United  States. 

Q.  When  did  you  get  back  ? 

A.  We  reached  Washington  about  noon  on  the  29th  of  April. 

Q.  Who  reached  Washington  with  you  ? 

A.  Mr.  Hollahan,  Mr.  Bigley,  and  McDevitt.  In  New  York  on  our  return  we 
met  Superintendent  Kichards,  and  he  came  on  to  Washington  with  us. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  on  the  evening  of  the  murder  there  was  a  colored 
woman  in  the  house  by  name  of  Susan ;  when  did  she  come  there,  if  you  know  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  Susan  had  been  there  only  about  three 
weeks  before  the  murder. 

Q.  After  the  murder  Avere  there  any  clothes  of  yours  left  there  to  wash  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  always  gave  my  washing  in  Monday  or  Tuesday. 

Q.  You  gave  in  no  washing  to  be  done,  then,  after  the  previous  Tuesday  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  cannot  really  see  the  bearing  of  where  the  witness  had  his 
washing  done. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  will,  perhaps,  see  before  you  are  a  great  deal  older. 

The  Court  inquired  what  relevancy  the  testimony  had  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  replied  he  proposed  to  show  that  the  washing  left  was  John 
Surratt's. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  any  clothes  to  be  washed  that  week  after  Monday  or  Tues- 
day ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  399 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  After  Susan  came  there  who  did  your  washing  ? 

A.  Susan  did  my  washing  for  only  three  weeks. 

Q.  Before  that  who  did  it? 

A.  The  colored  servant,  Avhoeverwas  there  before. 

Q.  State  how  long  you  had  had  it  done  at  the  house. 

A.  About  four  months. 

Q.  Did  you  have  it  done  by  Susan  Jackson  four  months  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  if  I  said  so  it  was  a  mistake. 

Q.  Were  you  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  the  16th  of  March,  I860  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  what  men  came  into  the  house  that  night  and  what  happened  ? 

A.  That  afternoon  I  had  returned  from  my  work  and  on  going  to  the  attic, 

where  the  day  previous 

Mr.  Bradley.  Don't  go  into  that;  just  answer  the  questions  asked. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  there  ? 

A.  I  saw  Payne,  Booth,  and  John  Surratt,  come  into  the  room  about  half- 
past  six  in  the  evening. 

Q.  State  how  they  were  dressed  or  armed,  if  they  were  armed  1 

A.  Surratt  was  the  one  who  came  in  first,  as  I  was  sitting  there.  He  had 
his  pants  in  his  boots.  He  was  much  excited,  and  had  one  of  these  four-bar- 
relled Sharp  revolvers  in  his  hand  ;  one  of  these  little  square  four-barrelled  pis- 
tols that  you  could  easily  put  in  a  vest  pocket.  I  asked  Surratt  what  was  the 
matter.  He  levelled  his  pistol  at  me  and  said,  "  My  prospects  are  gone ;  my  hopes 
are  blighted  ;  I  want  something  to  do  ;  can  you  get  me  a  clerkship  ?"  I  told 
him  he  was  foolish  ;  that  he  ought  to  settle  down  and  be  a  sensible  young  man. 

Q.  State  the  degree  of  excitement  ? 

A.  He  was  very  much  excited.     I  cannot  remember  the  degree  now. 

Q.  These  other  men,  what  did  they  do  and  what  happened  1 

A.  In  about  ten  minutes  after  Payne  came  into  the  room.  He  too  was  very 
much  excited  ;  his  face  was  red  with  excitement. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  ? 

A.  He  was  dressed  in  the  same  gray  clothes  he  was  on  his  second  visit  to 
Mrs.  Surratt.     Raising  his  vest,  I  noticed  that  he  had  a  pistol  on  his  hip. 

Q.  Did  Booth  come  in  1 

A.  About  fifteen  minutes  after  Booth  came  in. 

Q.  State  how  he  was  dressed  ? 

A.  In  his  usual  mode — dark  clothes;  he  had  a  riding  whip  in  his  hand  and 
walked  round  the  room  two  or  three  times.  He  did  not  at  first  notice  me  ;  I 
called  his  attention  and  he  said,  "Halloo !     You  here?     I  did  not  see  you." 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  arms  on  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  three  then  went  up  stairs  into  the  back  attic  where  Paj'ue 
had  his  room  at  that  time,  and  were  there,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  about 
thirty  minutes. 

Q.  What  did  they  do  then  ? 

A.  They  all  left  the  house  together. 

Q.  Who  left  the  house  ? 

A.  Payne,  Surratt,  and  Booth. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  the  same  evening,  and  asked  him  where  Payne  had  gone,  and 
where  Booth  had  gone. 

Q.   What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  that  Payne  had  gone  to  Baltimore,  aud  that  Booth  had  gone  to 
New  York. 


400  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Will  you  not  tell  the  jury  the  manner  of  these  men  ? 

A.  They  were  all  very  excited.  Booth  was  so  -excited  that  he  was  white 
with  excitement.     Payne  was  a  different  temperament,  he  was  very  red. 

Q.  Two  days  after  this  did  you  see  anything  of  these  men,  if  so  state  it  1 

A.  I  went  to  the  theatre  two  days  afterwards  when  Booth  played  Pescara 
the  Apostate.  On  leaving  the  theatre,  Herold,  Atzerodt,  Mr.  Hollahan,  Surratt, 
and  myself,  came  out  all  together.  Mr.  Hollahan,  Sun-att,  and  I,  went  as  far  as 
the  corner  of  Tenth  and  E  streets.  Surratt  th(  n  turned  around  and  saw  that 
Atzerodt  and  Herold  were  not  following  us.  He  directed  me,  being  more  intimate 
with  me  than  with  Mr.  Holohanto  goback  and  tell  Herold  and  Atzerodt  to  come 
to  Kloman's  saloon  on  Seventh  street,  and  partake  of  an  oyster  supper  with 
them. 

Q.  Did  you  do  so  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  saloon  right  adjoining  the  theatre.  As  I  came  in  I  saw 
Booth,  Herold,  and  Atzerodt,  talking  very  confidentially  and  very  friendly 
together,  near  the  stove.  When  I  approached  them  Booth  came  forward  and 
said,  "  Mr.  Weichman,  won't  you  come  and  take  a  drink."  I,  of  course,  con- 
sented ;  I  took  a  glass  of  ale  Avith  Booth,  Herold,  and  Atzerodt. 

Q.  Then  what  followed  1 

A.  Then  the  three  went  aside  again  and  had  a  little  conversation  ;  then  Herold, 
Atzerodt,  and  myself  left  and  joined  Surratt  and  Mr.  Hollahan  near  Eighth  and 
E  streets,  and  went  and  ate  our  oyster  supper  at  Kloman's.  The  whole  party 
consisted  of  Surratt,  Hollahan,  Herold,  Atzerodt,  and  myself. 

Q.  Was  Booth  tliere  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  Booth  was  not. 

Q.  How  often  was  Booth  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  two  or  three  months  prior 
to  the  murder  ? 

A.  He  came  very  frequently.  It  was  a  very  common  thing  for  me  to  see 
him  in  the  parlor  with  Sui-ratt,  when  Booth  was  in  town  after  4  o'clock.  They 
appeai'ed  like  brothers. 

Q.  Was  there  any  term  by  which  Booth  was  called  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  appeared  to  like  him  very  much. 

Q.  What  term  did  she  use  in  speaking  of  him  1 

A.  I  heard  her  once  when  Booth  had  stayed  two  or  three  hours  in  the  parlor 
call  him  "  Pet,"  saying,"  Pet  stayed  two  or  three  hours  in  the  parlor  last  evening." 
I  am  positive  she  used  the  word  "  Pet."  She  named  the  hours  from  10  at  night 
until  1  in  the  morning. 

Q.  What  was  the  character  of  his  intimacy  there  ? 

A.  I  think  he  was  nothing  more  than  a  friend. 

Q.  State  the  character  of  his  intimacy. 

Mr.  ]^Irrri('K.  Can  that  question  be  asked. 

The  Court.  It  is  rather  vague  in  its  character. 

Mr.  PlERREPO.NT  said  his  desire  was  to  avoid  a  leading  question,  and  his 
object  to  find  out  whether  Booth  was  very  intimate  there. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  facts  could  be  stated. 

Q.  Please  state  the  facts  in  regard  to  his  intimacy  ? 

A.  He  was  just  as  intimate  there  as  I  was. 

Q.  Take  that  telegram  (telegram  exhibited  to  witness)  and  state  if  you  know 
in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ? 

A.  I  know  the  handwriting. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Before  you  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is  I  want  to  ask  you 
tAvo  or  three  questions.  What  means  have  you  of  knowing  the  handwriting  of 
that  telegram  ] 

A.  In  the  first  place  the  handwriting  corresponds  exactly  in  style  and  character 
with  a  telegram  I  received  from  Booth.  He  makes  his  "  B's"  in  the  same  way, 
and  his  "  e's"  in  the  same  way,  more  like  "i's." 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  401 

The  Court,  State  whether  you  have  seeu  that  person  write. 

A.  I  have  seen  Booth  write  ;  I  have  had  his  autograph  in  my  possession  for 
weeks. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Have  you  got  his  autograph  now  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  1  don't  care  about  having  his  autograph  in  my  possession  now. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  his  autograph  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  Avrite  it. 

Q.  When  and  where  ? 

A.  I  saw  liim  write  some  time  in  April. 

The  Court.  The  proper  way  to  lay  the  foundation  for  identifying  writing  is 
to  ask  the  witness  if  he  has  ever  seen  the  party  write. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  Have  you  seen  this  person  write  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Have  you  received  notes  and  cards  from  Booth  ? 

A.  Booth  gave  me  his  autograph. 

Q.  Have  you  received  a  telegram  from  Booth  ? 

A.  I  received  a  telegram  on  the  23d  of  March. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Booth's  handwriting  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

]\[r.  PiERREPONT.  I  now  oifer  to  prove  by  this  witness  the  handwriting  of 
this  telegram. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  he  desired  to  take  an  exception  to  this  ruling — he  was 
not  permitted  to  cross-examine  the  Avitness — ^as  to  his  ability  to  identify  the  hand- 
writing. 

The  Court  said  that  counsel  could  cross-examine  in  the  usual  way  ;  this  was 
not  the  time  to  cross-examine. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiVT.  WJiat  do  you  say  as  to  the  handwriting  of  this  telegram  ? 

Witness.  It  is  Booth's  handwriting. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.XT  then  placed  in  evidence  the  following  telegram  1 

"  New  York,  Mafc7i  13,  1864. 
"  To  Mr.  McLaughlin,  No.  57  Norf/i  Exeter  street,  Baltimore.  Md.: 

"Don't  you  fear  to  neglect  your  business.     You  had  better  come  at  once. 

"J.  BOOTH." 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  explained  that  the  telegram  was  written  on  a  printed  blank 
marked  1S64,  but  on  the  back  of  it  was  an  indorsement  1865,  and  he  had  no 
doubt  1865  was  the  proper  date.  (To  witness :)  Now  look  at  this  telegram  and 
(another  telegram  exhibited)  state  in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ? 

Witness.  That  is  Booth's  handwriting. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT,  after  making  the  same  explanation  as  to  date  being  1865 
instead  of  1864,  read  and  placed  in  evidence  the  following  telegram  : 

"New  York,  March  21,  1864. 
"  To  Mr.  McLaughliyi,  No.  59  North  Exeter  street,  Baltimore,  Md. : 

"  Get  word  to  Sam.  to  come  on.  With  or  without  him,  Wednesday  morning 
we  sell — that  day,  sure.     Don't  fail. 

"J.  WILKES  BOOTH." 

Q.  Look  at  the  letter  now  shown  you  (letter  exhibited  to  witness)  and  state 
in  whose  handwriting  it  is  ? 
A.  It  is  in  my  handwriting. 
Q.  Is  it  the  one  you  spoke  of  in  the  testimony  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  one  I  wrote  for  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  14th  of  April. 
Mr.  PiERREPONT,  read  it. 
Witness  read  the  letter  as  follows  : 


402  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

"SURRATTSVILLE,  MARYLAND,  April    14,  1864. 

"Mr.  John  Nothey  : 

"  Sir  :  I  have  this  day  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Calvert,  intimating  tliat 
either  you  or  your  friends  have  represented  to  him  that  I  am  not  willing  to  settle 
with  you  for  the  land.  You  know  that  I  am  ready  and  have  been  waiting  for 
the  last  two  years,  and  now  if  you  do  not  come  within  the  next  ten  days  I  will 
settle  with  Mr.  Calvert  and  bring  suit  against  you  immediately.  Mr.  Calvert  will 
give  you  a  deed  on  receiving  payment. 

"  M.  E.  SURRATT, 
"  Administratrix  of  J.  H.  Surratt." 

Mr.  Bradley.  Was  it  signed  by  Mrs.  Surratt  or  by  you  ? 
A.  By  me. 

By  Mr.   PlERREPONT. 

Q.  By  whose  direction  did  you  sign  it  ? 
A.  Mrs.  Surratt's. 
Q.  Where  was  it  written  1 

A.  In  the  parlor  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  at  Surrattsville.  I  addressed  the 
envelope  there. 

By  a  Juror. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  that  you  signed  her  name  to  it  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  she  told  me  to  sign  her  name  ;  she  said  it  did  not  make  any  difference. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  offered  to  put  in  evidence  all  the  contents  of  the  diary 
taken  from  the  body  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  they  had  not  been  identified. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  said  he  was  under  the  impression  they  were  identified  by 
the  witness  Conger;  if  not,  he  would  withold  them  for  the  present. 

Q.  Look  at  the  entries  in  the  book  now  shown  you  (diary  taken  from  the 
body  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth)  and  say  in  whose  handwriting  they  are  1 

A.  I  recognize  them  as  Booth's  handwriting. 

Q.  Look  also  at  the  leaf  in  it  (letter  to  Dr.  Stewart)  and  say  in  whose  hand- 
writing that  is  1 

A.  I  recognize  both  the  diary  and  leaf  as  in  Booth's  handwriting ;  it  is  a 
smaller  hand  than  he  generally  wrote — such  as  he  would  write  in  pencil. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  then  offered  the  diary  in  evidence. 

The  letter  referred  to  was  also  placed  in  evidence,  and  is  as  follows  : 

"My  Dea — ,  [piece  torn  out,]  forgive  me,  but  I  have  some  little  pride.  lean- 
not  blame  you  for  want  of  hospitality.  You  know  your  own  affairs.  I  was  sick, 
tired,  with  a  broken  limb,  and  in  need  of  medical  advice.  I  would  not  have 
turned  a  dog  from  my  door  in  such  a  plight.  However,  you  were  kind  enough 
to  give  us  something  to  eat,  for  which  I  not  only  thank  you ;  but  on  account  of 
the  rebuke  and  manner  in  which,  to — [piece  torn  out.]  It  is  not  the  substance, 
but  the  way  in  which  kindness  is  extended,  that  makes  one  happy  in  the  accept- 
ance thereof.  The  sauce  to  meat  is  ceremony.  Meeting  were  bare  without  it. 
Be  kind  enough  to  accept  the  enclosed  So  (although  hard  to  spare)  for  what  I 
have  rec'd. 

"  Most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant." 

Q.  Look  at  this  card  and  see  if  you  know  this  handwriting.  (Card  shown 
to  witness.) 

A.  That  is  in  the  handwriting  of  John  H.  Surratt. 

The  card  being  one  identified  by  the  witness,  Dawson,  as  having  fallen  from 
the  vest  pocket  of  Booth,  was  read  and  placed  in  evidence  as  follows  :  "  J. 
Harrison  Surratt :  I  tried  to  get  leave,  but  could  not  succeed." 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  403 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  experience  in  writing  yourself — I  mean  beyond  the  or- 
dinary experience  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii*. 

Q.  What  can  you  write  ? 

A.  I  write  short-hand  ;  I  write  the  German  alpliabet.  I  have  had  a  great 
deal  of  experience  in  comparing  letters,  and  in  reading  letters  hard  to  deciphei*. 
I  taught  writing  for  about  sixteen  months  at  school. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  employed  at  the  War  Department  1 

A.  From  the  9th  of  January,  18G4,  till  the  14th  of  April,  18(55. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  a  difference  in  people  in  their  capacity  to 
detect  forgery  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  stated  there  were  experts  on  various  subjects.  His  object  was 
to  show,  as  the  law  required  before  offering  evidence,  that  there  were  such  things 
as  experts  on  the  subject  in  question. 

The  Court  said  the  question  could  be  asked  witness,  what  experience  he  has 
had  to  show  that  he  is  or  is  not  an  expert. 

Mr,  PiERREPONT.  I  will  ask  that  question. 

Witness.  In  1S66  I  was  reporting  a  trial  in  Philadelphia.  Three  letters 
were  submitted  to  me  which  had  been  found  in  the  west.  The  letters  were  in 
different  kinds  of  handwriting. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  object  to  this. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Very  well,  I  will  not  ask  for  any  more  experience  if  gen- 
tlemen do  not  want  it. 

(To  witness.)  I  want  you  to  take  this  letter  (letter  known  as  the  Charles 
Selby  letter)  and  examine  it. 

Witness.  The  handwriting  appears  to  me  to  bo  evidently  disguised. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  is  written  in  the  natural  hand  I 

A.  No,  sir  ;  the  letters  are  all  disjointed. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  its  being  a  disguised  hand  ? 

A.  It  is  my  opinion  it  is  a  disguised  hand. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON   SESSION. 

Louis  J.  Weichmaxn:  examination  resumed. 

Upon  reassembling  Mr.  Pierrepont  stated  that  he  had  in  his  possession  two 
letters  which  he  had  omitted  to  show  the  witness  when  he  was  before  on  the 
stand,  and  he  now  proposed  to  hand  them  to  him,  and  ask  him  in  whose  hand- 
writing they  were.     The  two  letters  were  then  exhibited  lo  the  witness. 

Q.  AVill  you  state  in  whose  handwriting  they  are? 

A.  This  one  (letter  dated  Surrattsville,  November  12,  1864)  is  in  Surratt's 
handwriting.  This  one  (dated  September  21,  1864)  is  also  in  Surratt's  hand- 
writing,    lie  wrote  two  bauds. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  simply  asking  you  if  they  are  both  in  Surratt's  hand- 
writing 1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  will  state  that  I  did  not  receive  the  letter  I  first  examined  at 
all.  The  second  one  (one  dated  September  21,  1864)  I  did  receive,  and  it  is  the 
last  one  I  ever  did  receive  from  Surratt. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  now  propose  to  read  these  letters. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object.  I  desire,  y^ur  honor,  first  to  see  the  letters,  and 
then  I  will  proceed  to  state  the  grounds  of  my  objection. 

The  letters  were  then  handed  to  the  court  and  read  by  him,  when 

Mr,  Bradley  said:  I  do  not  propose  to  argue  the  question,  if  your  honor 
please,  but  I  rather  think  that  this  is  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  criminal 
jurisprudence  in  this  country,  since  the  case  of  Algernon  Sidney,  where  a  paper 


404  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

or  the  draft  of  a  paper  found  in  the  possession  of  the  defendant,  and  never  out 
of  his  possession  until  taken  from  him  by  the  government,  has  been  offered  or 
sought  to  be  offered  in  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice.  This  first  letter  the  wit- 
ness acknowledges  was  never  received  by  him.  It  was  found  in  possession  of 
the  defendant,  and  was  never  out  of  his  possession  until  taken  by  the  govern- 
ment. Can  it  then,  sir,  be  introduced  here  ?  As  to  the  second  paper — the  one 
dated  September  21 — I  am  not  conscious  of  any  possible  bearing  it  can  have 
upon  the  issue  in  this  case.  It  is  wholly  immaterial ;  has  no  reference  what- 
ever to  any  matter  in  controvei'sy,  and  is  therefore  not  admissible  on  that  ground. 

Mr.  PiKRREPOM'.  If  your  honor  please,  if  the  counsel  had  not  stated  what 
he  did  with  so  much  apparent  confidence,  it  would  have  surprised  me.  The 
counsel  thinks  this  is  the  first  time  that  a  paper  obtained  under  the  circum- 
stances this  was  has  ever  been  sought  to  be  introduced  as  evidence  in  a  court  of 
justice  since  the  case  of  Algernon  Sidney.  I  must  say  that  this  is  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  criminal  jurisprudence  when  I  have  known  it  to  be  held 
that  upon  the  seizure  of  a  criminal  a  paper  found  in  his  possession  which  tends 
to  throw  any  light  whatever  upon  the  crime  with  which  he  stands  charged, 
whether  such  paper  be  written  by  himself  or  not,  cannot  be  given  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  did  not  make  that  point. 

Mr.  PiEKREPONT.  I  thought  that  was  the  point. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  you  misunderstood  me. 

Mr.  Pibrrepont.  Let  me  hear  what  it  was. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  stated  that  it  was  sought  to  introduce  here  a  paper  that  had 
never  been  published  by  the  party,  that  had  been  written  long  before  any  overt 
act  was  committed,  if  anv  ever  was  committed,  and  that  had  never  been  out  of 
the  possession  of  the  defendant ;  and  that  such  an  offer  was  altogether  improper 
and  should  not  be  entertained. 

Mr.  PrERREPONT.  The  objection  to  the  reception  of  this  paper,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  is  that  it  was  found  with  the  defendant's  papers.  I  claim  that  it  was 
found  with  the  defendant's  papers,  and  hold  that  that  is  one  of  the  strongest 
reasons  why  it  is  good  evidence  in  this  cause.  In  illustration  I  will  refer  to  a 
case  with  which  I  think  my  learned  friend  is  quite  familiar.  It  was  the  case  of 
a  murder  which  had  been  committed  in  England,  where  no  clue  to  the  murderer 
could  be  found. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Give  us  the  name  of  the  case. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  cannot  recall  the  name. 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  are  so  many  murder  cases  in  England  that  it  is  difficult 
to  remember  them  all. 

jMr.  PiERREPONT.  I  think  you  will  call  to  mind  the  case  when  I  state  the 
facts.  I  think  you  will  find  it  cited  in  Chief  Justice  Shaw's  opinion  in  the 
Webster  case,  5th  Cushing,  if  I  am  not  mistaken.  As  I  said,  during  the  inves- 
tigation no  clue  to  the  guilty  party  could  be  found.  Finally,  in  the  vest  pocket 
of  a  man  who  was  suspected  was  found  a  piece  of  paper  on  which  was  some 
writing.  It  was  discovered  that  the  wad  which  had  been  set  on  fire,  and  had 
fallen  from  the  gun  or  was  found  in  the  wound  or  clothes,  I  believe,  of  the  man 
who  was  shot,  appeared  to  have  been  torn  from  this  written  paper  that  was 
found  in  the  pocket  of  the  suspected  man.  This  evidence  in  regard  to  the 
paper  and  the  wad  was  admitted  ;  on  that  evidence  the  jury  found  him  guilty, 
and  on  that  evidence  he  was  hanged. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  dissent  from  that. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Anything  that  is  found  in  the  possession  of  a  man  ac- 
cused of  a  great  crime  when  he  is  arrested,  that  has  any  tendency  to  throw  light 
upon  the  subject,  however  near  or  however  remote,  is  evidence  to  go  to  the 
jury  for  them  to  weigh  and  consider,  whether  it  has  any  bearing  upon  the  case 
or  not. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  wish  to  reply ;  I,  of  course,  reserve  my  right  to  ex- 
cept. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT  405 

Mr.  MERRrcK,  If  jour  honor  will  allow  me  a  single  word.  I  merely  wish 
to  state  that  I  see  a  very  wide  difference  between  the  case  at  bar  and  the  case 
put  by  the  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side.  In  the  case  put  by  the  learned 
counsel  on  the  other  side,  a  "thing"  is  found  in  the  possession  of  the  defend- 
ant, which  "  thing"  is  shown  to  be  the  counterpart  of  another  "  thing"  used 
in  the  murder.  The  counterpart  of  the  "thing"  is  that  "thing"  which  bears 
relation  to  the  principal,  wherein  the  difference  makes  them  identical.  The 
counterpart  of  the  "  thing"  used  in  the  murder  was  still  in  the  possession  of 
the  prisoner,  and  as  a  "thing"  it  was  offered  in  evidence  to  show  the  identity 
of  the  two  articles,  and  the  connection  of  the  prisoner  Aviih  the  murder. 
Here,  however,  it  is  not  proposed  to  use  the  "  thing  "  found  in  the  possession 
of  the  prisoner,  but  the  "thought"  found  in  his  possession.  If  this  letter 
found  in  the  possession  of  the  prisoner  was  the  counterpart  of  any  other  letter  or 
paper  found  connected  with  the  perpetration  of  the  crime,  for  which  the  party 
is  indicted,  it  would  certainly  be  admissible  ;  but  it  isn't  proposed  to  use  it  as 
the  material  substance,  but  as  the  thought  of  the  prisoner ;  and  as  long  as  the 
writing  is  still  in  his  possession,  the  thought  is  unuttered,  and  it  is  not  compe- 
tent to  be  put  in  evidence.  And,  as  my  learned  brother  says,  that  was  the 
great  question  which  arose  in  Sydney's  case,  and  Avas  disregarded  in  that  case, 
which  resulted  in  a  judicial  murder,  but  was  afterwards  permanently  established 
in  the  English  law — that  you  could  not  determine  handwriting  by  comparison  ;  and 
that  unspoken  treason  was  not  treason,  although  the  document  was  written,  and 
in  possession  of  the  party  and  treasonable  in  its  character,  yet  being  unspoken 
was  not  competent  to  go  in  evidence,  for  the  reason  that  until  thought  is  pub- 
lished it  is  not  thought ;  it  is  no  act.  And  so  here.  This  letter  being  still  in 
the  possession  of  the  defendant  when  taken  by  the  government,  is  a  thought 
unspoken,  which  the  government  cannot  produce  as  the  spoken  thought  of  the 
party.  I  think  your  honor  will  perceive  that  the  difference  between  the  case 
put  by  the  learned  gentleman  and  the  case  at  bar  is  very  great. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  will  only  say  that  I  do  not  want  any  "thought."  It  is 
the  "thing"  I  am  after, 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then  I  do  not  know  what  you  want  to  read  the  letters  for. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  repeat,  I  do  not  care  anything  about  the  "  thought,"  I 
am  after  the  fact. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  is  the  "fact." 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  want  this  letter — this  letter  just  as  it  is. 

The  Court.  I  shall  let  the  letter  in. 

Mr.  Bradi  EY  reserved  an  exception. 

The  letter  was  then  read  as  follows  : 

"  Surrattsville,  November  12,  1864. 

"  Dear  Al.  :   Sorry  I  could  not  get  up.     Will  be  up  on  Sunday      Hope 

you  are  getting  along  well.     How   are  times — all  the  pretty  girls  ?     My  most 

pious  regards  to  the  latter ;  as  for  the  former,  I  have  not  a  continental   d — ra. 

Have  you  been  to  the  fair?     If  so.  what  have  we  now  ?     I'm  interested  in  the 

*  bedstead,'  How's  Kennedy  ?  Tight,  as  usual,  I  suppose.  Opened  his  office, 
I  hear.     Fifty  to  one  'tis  a  failure.     Am  very  happy  I  do  not  belong  to  the 

*  firm.'  Been  busy  all  the  week  taking  care  of  and  securing  tlie  crops.  Next 
Tuesday,  and  the  jig's  up.  Good  by,  Surrattsville.  Good  by,  God  forsaken 
country.     Old  Abe,  the  good  old  soul,  may  the  devil  take  pity  on  him. 

"  Surrattsville,  Md, 

"  Test :  JOHN  II,  SURRATT. 

"  To  Louis  J,  Weich.maw,  Esq.,  Washington  city,  D.  C." 


40  fi  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Attached  to  this  13  the  following  certificate : 

"Office  of  the  Provost  Marshal  and  Board  of 
Enrolment  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 

"  Washington,  May  10,  1865. 

"  The  paper  was  given  to  Lieutenant  Samuel  K.  Brown,  Y.  R.  C,  depart- 
ment provost  marshal,  D.  C,  by  Special  Officer  George  Cottingham,  of  my  force, 
Avho  obtained  it  from  the  bar-tender  of  Lloyd  at  Surrattsville  on  the  evening  of 
April  28,  1865.     Cottingham's  statement  is  herewith  appended. 

"JAMES  R.  O'BEIRNE, 
''Major  22d  Regiment  V.  R.  C,  Provost  Marshal  D.  C" 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  now  dcsire  to  have  the  jury  see  this  writing  for  another 
reason  connected  with  this  letter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  have  heard  this  letter  read  your  honor,  and  if  it  is  pro- 
posed to  exhibit  it  to  the  jury  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  institute  a  compa- 
rison of  the  handwriting,  as  I  understand  it  to  be,  I  object. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  have  not  yet  made  such  a  suggestion.  Your  honor  has 
seen  the  difference  in  the  handwriting  of  this  same  letter,  and  that  is  what  I 
desire  to  have  the  jury  see. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Difference  in  the  handwriting  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Your  witness  says  it  is  all  the  same  handwriting. 

Ml'.  PiERREPONT.   Written  by  the  same  man. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Does  your  honor  rule  that  it  can  be  shown  to  the  jury. 

The  Court.  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  kept  from  them. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Very  well,  sir;  I  desire  to  reserve  an  exception. 

The  letter  was  here  handed  to  the  jury,  when 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  :  If  the  jury  will  look  at  the  body  of  the  letter  and 
then  at  the  bottom,  they  will  see  a  difference  in  the  handwriting. 

The  letter  dated  September  21  was  then  read,  and  afterwards  handed  to  the 
jury  for  inspection.  To  the  admissiou  and  exhibition  of  this  letter  to  the  jury 
Mr.  Bradley  also  reserved  an  exception.     The  letter  is  as  follows  : 

"  Surrattsville,  Md.,  September  21. 
"  Louis  J.  Weichmann,   Washington,  D.  C. 

"  Dear  Friend  :  John  Surratt  is  neither  dead  nor  drafted,  though  he  ran  the 
gauntlet  of  both.  I  am  just  able  to  walk  but  a  little,  yet  very  weak.  I  have 
had  the  chills  and  fever  pretty  severely.  In  hopes  I  have  entirely  escaped,  I 
shall  be  in  Washington  as  soon  as  possible.  I  intend  to  stay  up  a  few  days  in 
order  to  recuperate.  Possibly  we  may  come  up  sooner  than,  we  anticipate,  on 
account  of  certain  events  having  turned  up.  I  am  quite  sorry  Miss  Estelle  has 
gone  to  Philadelphia.  There  is  no  attraction  there  now  for  me.  Miss  Fannie 
and  I  were  gettiug  on  a  fair  road  to  a  flirtation  when  she  bundled  up  bag  and 
baggage  and  left  for  Washington.  She  says  '  she  is  glad  Mrs.  Surratt  intends 
moving  to  town.'  All  right.  We  Avill  see.  Write  soon  and  tell  me  all  the 
news.  Nothing  would  give  me  greater  satisfaction  than  to  write  a  long  letter. 
I  am  very  happy  to  state  that  I  escaped  the  draft.  I  sincerely  hope  you  may  do 
the  same.     Family  all  well  and  send  respects  to  you.     Yours,  as  ever, 

"J.  Harrison  Surratt." 

Q.  Did  you  receive  that? 

A.  1  did.     It  was  the  last  one  I  ever  did  receive  from  him. 

Q.  Did  you  liear  anything  said  by  Mrs.  Surratt  or  John  about  a  cotton  or 
"  ile  "  speculation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Shortly  after  Surratt's  introduction  to  Booth,  Surratt  told  me 
that  he  was  going  to  Europe  ;  that  he  was  engaged  in  cotton  speculations.     He 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  407 

stated  tins  in  the  presence  of  liis  sister.  He  said  that  S3, 000  had  been  advanced 
to  him  by  some  elderly  gentleman  residing  in  the  neighborhood  ;  and  that  he 
■\vas  going  to  Liverpool,  from  Liverpool  to  Nassau,  and  thence  to  Matamoras, 
in  Mexico,  to  find  his  brother  Isaac.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  stating  that  very  fre- 
quently. 

Mr.  Bradley,  "Was  in  the  habit  of  stating  all  this,  or  what? 

A.  He  stated  the  whole  of  what  I  have  just  said.  At  another  time  he  said 
he  was  engaged  in  the  oil  business  ;  that  he  had  six  shares  of  oil  stock.  Once 
he  even  approached  me  and  asked  me  if  I  would  not  Avi-ite  an  article  for  the 
newspaper  to  the  effect  that  John  Wilkes  Booth,  the  accomplished  actor,  in  con- 
sequence of  having  erysipelas  in  his  leg,  had  retired  from  the;  stage  and  was 
engaged  in  the  oil  business.  He  stated  that  Booth  had  made  quite  a  fortune, 
and  had  presented  his  sister  with  the  money  he  had  made  out  of  the  oil. 

Q.  Whose  sister  ? 

A.  His  own  sister. 

Q.  Booth's  sister  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  He  wanted  me  to  give  him  a  puff,  but  I  refused. 

Q.  Did  he  state  in  what  paper  he  wanted  you  to  put  the  article  1 

A.  No,  sir.  He  said  he  simply  wanted  me  to  write  the  article ;  that  he  would 
have  it  published. 

Q.  Did  he  name  the  paper  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  In  this  first  letter  the  haud-Avriting  at  the  bottom  is  very  different  from 
that  in  the  body  of  the  letter ;   will  you  state  which  baud  Surratt  usually  wrote  ? 

A.  He  usually  wrote  the  hand  at  the  bottom  of  it. 

Q.  The  smaller  one  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  top  hand  is  a  back  hand,  or  hand  that  he  wrote  by  putting 
ills  pen  between  his  first  and  second  fingers. 

Q.  The  body  of  the  letter  is  not  in  his  ordinary  hand  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  spoken  of  places  that  you  went  to  on  your  way  to  Canada.  I 
want  the  jury  to  get  an  idea  of  the  position  of  those  places.  Will  you  point 
out  on  that  map  the  position  of  the  different  places  you  went  to  after  leaving 
New  York,  on  your  way  to  Canada  ? 

Witness  did  as  requested. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradlev  : 

Q.  What  place  are  you  a  native  of? 

A.  I  am  a  native  of  Baltimore.     I  am  a  native  of  the  United  States,  too. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  Baltimore,  Maryland  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  believe  that  is  in  the  United  States. 

Q.  You  say  that  you  were  educated  at  the  college  at  Ellicott's  Mills,  where 
you  met  John  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  ever  at  any  place  not  a  great  distance  from  Baltimore  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  an  education  ? 

A.  I  was  at  Borromeo  college  for  a  short  while. 

Q.  Has  that  any  other  name  in  the  neighborhood  ? 

A.  It  is  at  Pikesville. 

Q.  Is  there  any  place  in  that  heighborhood  called  Texas,  or  Little  Texas  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  was  teaching  there  two  weeks. 

Q.  Did  you  come  from  Ellicott's  Mills  College,  St.  Charles  College,  to  Wash- 
ington, or  whence  did  you  come  to  Washington  ? 

A.  When  I  left  St.  Charles  College,  in  July,  1862, 1  returned  to  Philadelphia, 
on  a  two  months'  vacation.     In  September,  1SG2,  I  accepted  of   a  position 


408  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

at  Borromeo  college,  in  Maryland ;  was  there  three  months,  and  then  went  and 
taught  two  weeks  at^a  little  place  called  Texas.  The  schoolhouse  being  des- 
troyed by  fire  I  came  to  Washington,  and  accepted  of  a  position  in  St.  Mat- 
theAv's  Institute. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  with  a  gentleman  there  named  St.  Marie  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

A.  I  met  him  at  Ellengowan,  on  the  third  of  April,  1863. 

Q.  Where  is  Ellengowan  1 

A.  Ellengowan  and  Texas  are  both  one  and  the  same. 

Q.  You  met  him  then  at  Texas  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  met  him  on  the  third  of  April,  1863.  I  was  employed  in 
Washington,  but  was  making  a  visit  at  that  time  with  Surratt.  I  introduced 
Surratt  to  St.  Marie. 

Q.  On  the  third  of  April,  1863  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  good  Friday,  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  I  left  Washington  on  the  second  of  April,  1863,  and  returned  to  Wash- 
ington on  the  following  Monday  evening. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  visit  Texas  after  that? 

A.  I  believe  I  did ;   I  think  the  following  Christmas. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  visit  it  in  company  with  Mr.  Surratt  after  that  1 

A.   I  did  not. 

Q.  You  are  positive  about  that  1 

A.  I  am.     Surratt  was  with  me  at  Ellengowan  only  once. 

Q.  You  are  distinct  in  your  recollection  of  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  not  there  in  1865  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  AVhen  you  came  to  Washington,  do  I  understand  you  correctly  that  you 
accepted  a  situation  in  St.  Matthews'  Institute  ? 

A.  I  accepted  a  position  in  St.  Matthews'  Institute  in  the  latter  part  of  De- 
cember, 1862. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  "accepting?"  Did  you  not  seek  it,  and  seek  it 
earnestly  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  sought  it ;  I  do  not  deny  that.     I  was  glad  to  get  it,  too. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ? 

A.-  1  remained  there  from  the  24th  of  December,  '62,  to  the  9th  of  January, 
'64. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  leave  it  ? 

A.  I  left  because  I  was  not  treated  right. 

Q.  Then  you  left  of  your  own  accord  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  received  only  thirty-five  dollars  there,  and  I  had  a  position 
offered  to  me  which  paid  me  eighty  doUars  a  month.  I  always  look  out  for  self- 
interest,  and,  therefore,  thought  it  was  better  to  get  eighty  dollars  than  thirty- 
five  dollars. 

Q.  But  in  looking  out  for  self-interest,  which  is  a  very  commendable  thing, 
can  you  state  that  you  left  there  voluntarily,  of  your  own  motion  ? 

A.  I  sent  in  my  resignation. 

Q.  And  that  was  your  own  motion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  duties  of  teaclier  were  not  only  exacted  of  me,  but  there 
was  no  man  there  to  sweep  the  room,  and  the  students  under  my  charge  for 
three  months  were  compelled  to  sweep  up.  I  remonstrated  against  this  several 
times. 

Q.  To  whom  ? 

A.  To  the  gentlemen  who  had  charge  of  the  institution. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  409 

Q.  Who  was  tlaat  ? 

A.  Rev.  Dr.  White,  pastor  of  St.  Matthew's  Institute. 

Q.  Who  had  the  direct  charge  of  that  school? 

A.  I  had  the  direct  charge  of  the  pupils. 

Q.  What  business  had  Mr.  Murphy  there  1 

A.  He  was  assistant  teacher. 

Q.  Who  was  the  principal  teacher  ? 

A.  I  considered  myself  the  principal  teacher,  because  I  taught  iip  stairs  and 
he  taught  down  stairs.  [Laughter.]  1  had,  too,  the  best  and  more  advanced 
class  of  boys  ;    he  had  the  little  boys  with  bare  feet. 

Q.  Whei-e  was  this  position  of  S80  a  month  that  was  offered  to  you  ? 

A.  It  was  in  the  office  of  the  Commissary  General  of  Prisoners. 

Q.  Do  you  know  by  whose  agency  and  instrumentality  you  obtained  that 
appointment  ? 

A.  I  do.  By  the  agency  of  ilr.  Shanklin,  chief  clerk  of  that  office,  on  two 
letters  of  recommendation,  one  from  Mr.  White,  and  the  other  from  Captain 
Batey,  which  I  have  in  my  possession. 

Q.  Where  were  you  living  at  that  time  1 

Witness.  On  the  9th  of  January,  1864 1 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir. 

A.  I  was  boarding  at  the  house  of  JMrs.  Handy,  but  had  lodgings  at  the  house 
of  Mrs.  Sly. 

Q.  You  remained  there  how  long  ] 

A.  I  boarded  at  Mrs.  Handy's  until  some  time  in  the  fall,  when  I  went  to 
board  at  22  Pennsylvania  avenue,  at  a  house  kept  by  a  colored  man  named 
Purnell. 

Q.  Can  you  not  fix  it  any  nearer  than  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  do  not  remember  the  date.     Perhaps  about  September. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  at  Mr.  Purnell's  ? 

A.  I  remained  at  Mr.  Purnell's  three  or  four  months.  I  may  have  gone  there 
in  May  or  July.     I  do  not  remember  exactly  about  going  to  Mr.  Purnell's. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  how  long  you  staid  there  1 

A.  I  was  boarding  at  Mr.  Furnell's  house  until  I  came  to  board  with  Mrs, 
Surratt  on  the  1st  of  November,  1864. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  not  answering  my  question. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  number  of  months — whether  one,  two,  or  three. 
It  was  perhaps  three  months,  and  it  may  have  been  four. 

Q.  Then  you  went  to  board  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  St.  Charles  were  you  studying  for  the  priesthood  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  And  from  that  time  to  this  have  you  k(!pt  up  your  connection  with  the 
church  ? 

A.  I  have  kept  up  my  connection  with  the  church,  but  not  as  a  student  for 
the  ministry. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  did  not  ask  about  the  ministry,  but  your  connection  with  the 
church. 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  lived  at  Mrs.  Sun-att's  how  long  ? 

A.  From  the  1st  November,  1861,  until  14th  of  April,  I860. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  five  months  and  a  half.  During  that  time  had  you 
opportunities  of  observing  her  life  and  conduct  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  Now  state  whether  it  was  or  not  exemplary  as  a  Christian  woman. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  object. 

27 


410  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Mr,  Braulev.  I  mean  to  put  her  character  in  issue. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Undoubtedly ;  but  this  is  not  the  time. 

Mr,  Bradley.  The  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  assailed  her  character 
in  the  worst  possible  manner. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  submit,  your  honor,  that  there  is  no  difficulty  about  put- 
ting her  character  in  issue  at  the  proper  time,  bui  that  it  cannot  be  done  on 
cross-examination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  want  to  show  what  her  whole  life  was  during  the  time  that 
this  man  has  been  detailing  incidents  of  it,  and 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to  his  bringing  all  the 
church,  all  the  laymen,  and  everybody  else  to  whom  your  honor  may  be  wil- 
ling to  listen,  to  prove  what  her  character  was  as  far  as  they  can  speak  from 
their  own  knowledge,  but  I  object  to  its  being  done  on  the  cross-examination  of 
a  witness.  They  cannot  use  a  witness  on  cross-examination  for  the  purpose  of 
supporting  character. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  expect  to  support  her  character  by  this  witness.  I 
wish  to  test  this  witness's   observation  and  memory  of  it. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see,  Mr.  Bradley,  that  the  evidence  proposed  to  be  given 
is  at  all  responsive  to  anything  brought  out  on  the  cross-examination.  It  is 
competent  to  prove  character,  but  in  doing  so  you  make  the  witness  your  own, 

Mr.  Bradley.  Your  honor  then  rules,  that  when  the  prosecution  have  shown 
that  during  a  particular  portion  of  the  time  this  witness  was  stopping  at  her 
house — that  is,  on  Sunday — she  visited  one  church  regularly ;  and  that  during 
a  certain  portion  of  the  services  of  the  Catholic  church,  she  habitually  attended 
another  chTirch,  I  may  not  inquire  into  her  character  ? 

The  Court,  0,  yes ;  you  can  inquire  into  everything  that  has  been  gone 
into  in  the  examination  in  chief. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  Certainly;  we  have  no  objection. 

The  Court.  If  anything  has  been  said  in  that  direct  examination  about  her 
attending  church.,  you  may  question  the  witness  in  regard  to  it  on  the  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  To  which  we  shall  certainly  not  object, 

]\Ir.  Bradley.  I  understand  the  question  I  put  has  been  ruled  ont  by  your 
honor  ? 

The  Court.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  desire  to  have  an  exception  resented, 

Q.  State  what,  during  the  whole  time  of  your  stay  there,  her  deportment  was 
towards  you  personally. 

A.  She  treated  me  just  as  kindly  as  I  treated  her. 

Q.  I  asked  what  her  deportment  towards  you  was  ? 

A.  She  treated  me  kindly. 

Q.  Had  you  not,  in  her  house,  the  freedom  of  a  son  almost  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  sick  at  any  time  during  your  stay  there  ? 

A.  I  was  sick  for  a  short  time  one  night. 

Q.  Were  you  not  nursed  and  attended  as  though  you  were  her  son  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Y'^ou  have  spoken  of  the  visitors  to  her  house — Booth,  Atzerodt,  Payne, 
and  Herold ;  did  you  not  see  respectable  citizens  visiting  there  also  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Many? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  names  of  any  who  were  there  frequently? 

A  .  I  would  not  like  to  state  who  were  there.  Perhaps  those  gentlemen  mighl 
object. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  411 

Q.  I  call  upon  you  to  state  who  ^vere  frequent  visitors  at  her  house  besides 
those  you  liave  enumerated  on  your  examination  here. 

A.  Father  Wiget  was  a  very  frequent  visitor,  as  was  also  her  brother. 

Q.  Who  else  1 

A.  Sometimes  one  or  two  sisters  of  charity,  Mrs.  Kirby  and  Mrs.  Dean. 
Those  are  about  all  I  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  any  other  gentlemen  visiting  that  house  in  the  five 
months  you  were  there  except  the  two  you  have  mentioned,  exclusive  of  those 
referred  to  in  your  examination  in  chief? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  there  were  none  others  there,  so  far  as  you  know  1 

A.  So  far  as  I  know  ;  that  is,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection.  If  you  were  to 
call  any  others  to  my  attention  I  could  tell  whether  they  used  to  come  there  or 
not. 

Q.  I  want  to  test  your  memory,  and  do  not  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
anything.     On  the  night  of  the  13th  of  March,  1865,  where  were  you  1 

A.  I  was  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  Who  else  was  there? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Anna  Surratt,  and  Miss  Fitzpatrick. 

Q.  Who  else  besides  members  of  the  family  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Hollahan. 

Q.   She  was  a  member  of  the  family,  was  she  not  ? 

A.  She  was  boarding  in  the  house,  but  she  was  not  a  member  of  the  flimily. 

Q.  All  those  you  have  mentioned  were  inmates  of  the  house,  were  they  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  there  was  no  one  else  there  that  night  except  the  inmates  of  the 
house  ? 

A.   Not  that  I  remember  of  now. 

Q.  Have  you  any  distinct  memory  about  it  ? 

A.  I  have  a  very  distinct  memory  that  there  was  no  one  else  there.  Some 
one  else  came  in  for  a  short  time. 

Q.  Who  was  that  ? 

A.  Payne. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  evening  of  the  13th  of  March,  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  was  the  only  one  there  other  than  those  who  were  inmates  of  the 
house  ? 

A.  He  was  the  only  one  that  I  remember  of 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  that  date  of  the  13th  of  March  ? 

A.  By  the  fact  that  it  was  two  evenings  before  the  1 5th  of  March  that  Payne 
came. 

Q.   How  do  you  remember  the  15th  of  March  ? 

A.  I  remember  that  by  the  play  at  the  theatre  on  that  occasion,  "  Jane  Shore." 

Q.  On  the  15th  of  March  "Jane  Shore"  was  played? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  played  any  prominent  character  in  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.     I  was  not  at  the  theatre  that  evening. 

Q.  How  do  you  know,  then,  whether  it  was  played  or  not  ? 

A.  John  Surratt  told  me  it  was  played. 

Q.  When  did  he  tell  you  ? 

A.  A  few  days  afterwards ;  Little  Miss  Dean  told  me,  also.  She  described 
the  costumes,  &c. 

Q.  Who  was  at  ^frs.  Surratt's  house  on  the  18th  of  March  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know,  because  I  was  out  that  evening. 

Q.  Who  was  there  before  you  went  out  ? 

A.  Surratt  was  there. 


412  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  speak  of  the  inmates  of  the  house. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  others. 

Q.  Where  were  you  that  night  ? 

A.  Surratt  and  I  were  at  the  theatre. 

Q.  What  was  the  play  1 

A.  The  "  Apostate.  " 

Q.  Who  played  in  it? 

A.  Booth  and  John  McCullough. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  as  a  witness  before  the  commission  Avho  tried  the 
alleged  conspirators  ] 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  fix  a  different  night  then  for  the  performance  of  that  play  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  afterwards  see  the  affidavit  of  John  McCullough  swearing 
that  he  was  not  here  at  that  time,  and  did  not  play  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  see  the  affidavit  of  John  McCullough,  swearing  that  he 
was  not  here  on  the  IStli  of  March.  I  did  see  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  McCullough 
swearing  that  he  was  not  here  on  the  2d  of  April, 

Q.  Did  you  not  fix  that  period  ? 

A.  Which  ?     I  did  not  say  the  18th. 

Q.  Was  not  the  day  fixed  by  you  then  as  the  time  when  John  McCullough 
played  here,  a  day  other  than  the  ISth  of  March  ? 

A.  I  said,  as  well  as  I  could  remember,  before  the  commission,  that  it  was 
the  26th  of  March.  I  now  state  it  was  the  18th  of  March.  I  was  mistaken 
not  as  to  the  fact,  but  merely  as  to  the  time  ?  , 

Q.  Did  you,  before  that  commission,  swear  you  were  introduced  to  John 
McCullough,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  on  the  2d  of  April  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  that  true  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  see  the  affidavit  of  John  McCullough,  stating  that  he  was 
not  here  on  the  2d  of  April  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  not  you  see  the  affidavit  stating  that  he  did  not  know  you,  and  had 
never  seen  you  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  saw  that. 

Q.  Afterwards,  did  not  you  change  the  date  of  your  introduction  to  John 
McCullough  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  changed  the  date  before  I  had  seen  John  McCullough's 
affidavit. 

Q.  Where  did  you  change  it  ? 

A.  In  my  own  mind. 

Q.  To  whom  did  you  declare  that  change  ? 

A.  I  told  j\Ir.  Aiken,  while  evidence  for  the  defence  was  being  taken,  that  it 
was  not  the  2d  of  April,  but  the  2Gth  of  March.  I  am  positive  that  I  met  John 
McCullough,  and  if  necessary 

Q.  When  did  you  tell  Mr.  Aiken  ? 

A.  I  told  him  while  the  evidence  for  the  defence  was  being  taken,  after  I 
had  got  through  with  my  testimony.  I  was  merely  mistaken  as  to  the  time. 
If  necessary,  I  could  detail  the  conversation  which  I  had  with  Mr.  McCullough. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  think  Mr.  McCullough  is  on  the  other  side  of  the  mountains; 
at  least  we  have  tried  to  get  him,  but  have  not  succeeded ;  so  you  will  not  detail 
that,  if  you  please. 

Q.  Can  you  now  fix  with  any  degree  of  certainty  the  time  when  you  were 
introduced  to  Dr.  Mudd  ? 

A.  I  was  introduced  to  Dr.  Mudd  in  the  winter  of  1864-'65.     I  could  fix  it 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   II.    SURRATT.  413 

certainly,  beyond  a  doubt,  by  going  to  the  National  Hotel  and  seeing  at  Avbat 
time  Booth  occupied  room  81. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  means  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember  just  now. 

Q.  When  asked  that  question  upon  the  trial  before,  did  you  state  any  other 
means  by  which  you  could  fix  it  ? 

A.  I  stated  that  it  could  be  fixed  by  means  of  the  register  at  the  Pennsylva- 
nia House. 

Q,  Did  you  go  to  the  Pennsylvania  House  to  look  for  that  register  ? 

A.  I  did  not — not  to  the  Pennsylvania  House. 

Q.  Not  the  house  down  on  C  street  1 

A.  No,  sir.  I  never  saw  the  register  of  the  Pennsylvania  House,  except  on 
one  occasion,  several  months  before  the  trial,  when  I  went  there  to  look  for  a 
friend. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  it  during  the  trial  of  the  assassins  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  fix  the  date  as  the  15th  of  January,  or  about  that  time  1 

A.  I  said  about  the  loth  of  January. 

Q.  That  was  in  the  month  of  June  you  testified  ? 

A.  I  testified  in  the  month  of  April. 

Q.  You  testified  before  that  commission  in  the  month  of  April  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  in  the  month  of  May,  I  should  say. 

Q.  And  then  your  recollection  was  that  it  was  the  fifteenth  of  January  that 
you  saw  Dr.  Mudd  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  ray  recollection,  from  circumstances.  I  was  sorry  I  did 
not  go  to  the  National  Hotel  to  see  the  room. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  now  1 

A.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  in  the  winter  of  lS64-'65. 

Q.  That  is  as  near  as  3''ou  can  come  to  it  ? 

A.  I  will  fix  it  positively  by  saying  that  it  was  room  84, 

Mr.  Bradley.  1  am  speaking  now  of  the  time  you  saw  Dr.  Mudd,  when 
you  went  to  the  Pennsylvania  House  with  him  ? 

A.  I  fix  it  also  by  another  circumstance — by  the  fact  of  Surratt  being  em- 
ployed by  the  Adams  Express  Company  a  short  time  after  this  introduction. 
That  fact  has  occurred  to  me  within  the  past  two  years.  Had  that  fact  come  to 
my  mind  in  1865  I  would  have  stated  it. 

Q,  Have  you  not  been  to  the  office  of  the  Adams  Express  Company  to  ascer- 
tain when  that  employment  was  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Didn't  you  ascertain  that  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  and  not 
in  January  ? 

A.  The  man  told  me  that  it  was  on  the  31st  of  December.  He  did  not  say 
anything  about  January. 

Q.  You  say  that  Surratt  was  employed  shortly  after  the  introduction  to  Mudd 
and  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  must  have  been  introduced  to  Mudd  and  Booth  before  the  Slst 
of  December  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yet  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  you  swear  that  it  was  about  the  15th 
of  January  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Now  what,  since  that,  has  enabled  you  to  change  the  date  of  the  perform- 
ance of  McOuUough  and  Booth  at  the  theatre,  and  the  day  of  your  interview  with 
Booth  and  Mudd  ] 

A.  I  will  answer  any  one  of  those  questions  singly. 


414  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  First,  what  enables  you  to  fix  tlie  change  in  the  date  1 

A,  I  changed  the  date  before  I  ever  saw  John  McCullough's  affidavit. 

Q.  I  asked  you  what  enabled  you  to  change  the  date  ? 

A.  The  fact  that  it  was  not  Booth  who  called  on  the  2d  of  April,  but  Atze- 
rodt.  I  know  that  Booth  had  called  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  a  week  previous 
to  Atzerodt's  arrival. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  gentleman  named  Ford,  proprietor  of  Ford's  theatre  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not,  very  shortly  after  you  had  given  that  testimony  at  the 
conspiracy  trials,  have  a  conversation  with  him  as  to  the  time  when  Booth 
and  McCullough  performed  at  the  theatre. 

Witness.     At  what  time  ?    They  performed  often. 

Mr.  Bradley.     I  mean  when  the  "  Apostate"  was  performed  in  March,  1865  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember.  Mr.  Ewing  was  the  first  one  who  called  my  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  "  Apostate"  was  performed  on  the  ISth  of  March. 

Q.  But  what  you  said  to  Mr.  Ford,  and  what  Mr.  Ford  said  to  you,  you  do 
not  remember  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Ford  ? 

A.  Slightly. 

Q,.  Were  you  not  imprisoned  with  him  at  the  same  time  in  Carroll  prison  ? 

A.  I  was  at  Carroll  prison  for  30  days ;  but  not  in  the  same  room. 

Q.  You  saw  him  daily? 

A.  Almost  daily? 

Q.  Didn't  you  ride  up  and  down  with  him  to  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  conversed  on  this  subject  with  him  1 

A.  Sometimes  I  did,  and  sometimes  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  not  you  talk  about  this  very  time — talk  about  the  performance  of 
"  Pescara,"  in  the  play  of  the  "Apostate?" 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  you  then  that  you  were  mistaken  as  to  the  time  when 
"Pescara"  was  performed? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  You  do  remember  that  you  had  conversations  with  him  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  enables  you  to  fix  the  change  in  the  date  as  to  the  time  when  Dr. 
Mudd  was  at  the  Pennsylvania  House  ? 

A.  The  fact  of  his  employment  by  the  Adams  Express  Company. 

Q.  Then  you  know  that  John  Surratt  was  employed  the  by  Adams  Express 
Company  after  you  had  been  introduced  to  Dr.  Mudd  and  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  know  that  John  Surratt  was  in  the  employ  of  the  Adams  Express 
Company  one  holiday,  and  that  he  wanted  leave  of  absence  for  the  holiday,  but 
did  not  get  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  have  told  us  all  about  that — about  his  taking  French 
leave. 

A.  This  is  a  different  circumstance. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  how  you  fix  the  fact  that  John  Surratt  was  employed  by 
the  Adams  Express  Company  after  you  were  introduced  to  ]\Iudd  and  Boot  h  ? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  He  proposes  to  give  the  other  circumstance. 

Mr.  Bradley.  0,  well,  let  him  give  it.     I  want  everything  to  come  out. 

Witness.  I  will  answer  your  question  by  saying,  merely  because  on  one  of 
the  holidays  at  that  time,  a  Sunday,  or  some  other  day,  perhaps  New  Year's, 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  415 

Surratt  was  at  work  all  day  in  the  office.     I  know  it  was  a  holiday  because  we 
had  turkey  for  dinner.     [Laughter.] 

Q.  Then  you  know  that  was  after  your  introduction  to  Booth  and  Mudd  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  that  must  have  been  in  December  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  before  John  Surratt  was  employed  by  the  Adams  Express 
Company  was  it  you  had  that  introduction  ? 

A.  Several  days. 

Q.  A  week  ? 

A.  Perhaps  about  a  week  or  ten  days. 

Q.  Are  you  aware  that  proof  was  given  on  that  trial  that  Dr.  IMudd  was  not 
here  at  the  time  you  named  ? 

A.  Dr.  Mudd  himself  has  admitted  that  what  I  said  about  him  was  true. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  Dr.  Mudd  admitted.  Are  you 
aware  that  on  that  trial  proof  was  given  that  Dr,  Mudd  was  not  here  at  the 
time  you  fixed  him  here  ? 

A.  I  have  read  Mr.  Bingham's  argument. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  am  not  asking  you  as  to  whether  you  have  read  Mr.  Bing- 
ham's argument  or  not.  I  repeat  my  question:  "Are  you  aware  that  on  that 
trial  proof  was  given  that  Dr.  Mudd  was  not  here  at  the  time  you  fixed  him 
here?" 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  When  was  the  time,  according  to  the  time  fixed  by  the  evidence  or  the 
arguments  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  One  of  the  times  fixed  was  that  he  was  here  on  the  22d  of  December, 
1864. 

Q.  Yet  you  on  that  trial  swore  that  he  was  here  about  the  15th  of  January? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection.  Another  circumstance  which  comes  to 
my  mind  as  fixing  tlie  introduction  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  1864,  is  that 
Surratt  went  to  Port  Tobacco  in  the  early  part  of  January,  1865.  It  has  im- 
pressed my  mind,  and  I  am  positive  that  the  introduction  to  Mudd  and  Booth 
was  before  this  ride  to  Port  Tobacco,  which  was  in  the  early  part  of  1865. 

Q.  Hadn't  you  thought  over  all  these  circumstances  before  you  were  examined 
here  yesterday  1 

A.  I  have  thought  over  them  for  the  last  two  years. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  will  do  for  the  present. 

The  Court.  Have  you  concluded  the  cross-examination  of  the  witness  1 

Mr.  Bradley.  0,  no,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  that  "Jane  Shore"  was  performed  on  the  15th  of  March. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  gave  that  same  date  on  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 

A.  I  fixed  it  finally  for  Mr.  Cox.  I  said  "Jane  Shore"  was  played  on  the 
15th,  as  well  as  I  could  remember. 

Q.  After  having  given  your  testimony  in  chief  in  that  case,  or  just  before,  do 
you  remember  a  conversation  with  Mr,  Ford,  or  any  one  else,  on  the  way  from 
Carroll  prison  to  the  place  of  trial,  in  which  you  asked  what  night  "  Jane  Sliore  " 
was  acted  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember.  I  asked  that  fact  of  a  Mr.  Lewis  Garland, 
who  was  an  actor  at  Jlr.  Ford's  theatre. 

Q.  An  actor  was  he? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  (After  a  moment's  reflection:)  No,  he  was  not  an  actor,  but  he 
was  employed  at  Ford's  theatre.     I  believe  he  Avas  costumer. 

Q.  When  and  where  did  you  ask  him  1 

A.  I  asked  him  down  at  the  conspiracy  trials. 

Q.  Then  did  he  tell  you? 


416  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q    Did  you  swear  according  to  what  lie  told  you,  or  according  to  your  recol- 
lection ? 

A.  I  swore  according  to  my  recollection.     He  corroborated  my  recollection. 

Q.  You  say  Mr.  Garland  agi-eed  with  you  in  your  recollection  as  to  the  date  of 
that  night? 

A.  I  do  not  say  that  he  agreed.     He  corroborated  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  he  corroborated,  which  is  agreeing,  I  take  it. 

Q.  Where  was  that  conversation  with  Garland? 

A.  Down  at  the  conspiracy  trial. 

Q.  Was  it  or  not  on  the  way  from  Garroll  prison  to  the  place  where  the  trial  was 
had? 

A .  No,  sir ;  Garland  Avas  not  confined  in  Garroll  prison,  but  at  the  jail  out  here. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  going  down  to  that  conspiracy  trial  with  John  M.  Lloyd  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  believe  he  was  along  one  day. 

Q.  Was  anybody  else  with  you? 

A.  Two  soldiers  with  loaded  muskets. 

Q.  Nobody  else? 

A.  There  may  have  been  two  or  three  other  persons,  whose  names  I  cannot 
now  recall. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Ford  with  you? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  he  was  with  us  that  particular  day  or  not, 

Q.  You  have  testified  here  that  when  Mrs.  Surratt  was  being  driven  by  you 
in  a  buggy  to  Surrattsville,  you  met  Lloyd  in  a  buggy  at  a  little  village  beyond 
the  Eastern  braucli ;  that  both  carriages  were  stopped,  and  that  Lloyd  came  up 
to  the  buggy  which  you  were  driving,  and  spoke  to  Mrs  Surratt  in  such  a  low 
tone  that  you  could  not  hear  what  passed;  I  believe  that  is  the  substance  of 
what  you  testified  to  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you,  or  not,  at  that  time,  look  right  into  Lloyd's  face  while  he  was 
talking  with  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  sat  right  up  in  the  buggy,  with  my  back  against  the  back  part 
of  the  buggy. 

Q.  You  did  not  look  into  Lloyd's  face  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  at  that  precise  moment,  Avhile  he  was  conversing ;  I  looked  at 
him  as  he  came  from  his  can-iage  over  to  Avhere  we  were,  and  he  recognized  me. 

Q.  On  the  way  to  the  prison  of  which  I  have  spoken,  when  Lloyd  was  with 
you,  and  somebody  else,  did  you  not  ask  Lloyd  in  what  tone  of  voice  Mrs. 
Surratt  spoke  to  him  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  You  did  not? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  tell  him  that  you  had  testified  that  she  had  spoken  in  a 
whisper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  expressed  astonishment. 

Q.  Is  that  all  he  said? 

A.  That  is  all  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  not  he  say  that  if  you  swore  to  that  you  swore  to  a  lie? 

Mr.  PiKRREPO.N'T.  I  submit  to  your  honor  whether  this  evidence  is  proper — 
what  Mr.  Lloyd  said  to  him. 

The  GouRT.  You  cannot  ask  the  witness  what  Mr.  Lloyd  said. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Gannot  I  do  so  for  the  purpose  of  testing  his  memory  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPOiNT.  Mr.  Lloyd  has  already  testified  here,  and  we  can  produce 
Jiim  again  if  necessary. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.   SUERATT.  417 

The  Court.  You  may  ask  the  witness  whether  he  did  not  say  so  and  so  to 
Mr.  Lloyd,  and  then,  when  he  has  answered,  if  you  wish  to  contradict  him  you 
can  bring  Mr.  Lloyd. 

Q.  When  you  told  Lloyd  that  she  whispered  to  him,  did  you  say  anything 
else  to  him  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Lloyd  that  she  whispered  to  him  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  so. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Lloyd,  at  that  time,  that  you  had  sworn  she  whispered  to 
him  ? 

A.  I  told  Lloyd  that  I  had  testified  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and 
belief,  she  whispered  to  him.     I  did  not  hear  that  conversation. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  Lloyd  to  correct  the  testimony  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  It  seems  we  cannot  ask  you  what  Lloyd  said. 

Mr.  Merrick.  You  can  if  the  other  side  assent  to  it. 

Q.  You  have  stated  here  to-day,  if  I  understand  you  correctly,  that  you  left 
no  clothes  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  after  the  16th  or  17th  of  April,  whichever  it  was  ? 

A.  I  left  no  clothes  which  Avere  to  be  washed.  On  Sunday  or  Monday  I  took 
off  a  pair  of  dirty  boots  which  I  had,  and  left  them  in  my  room.  When  counsel 
for  the  prosecution  asked  me  the  question,  I  thought  he  meant  clothes  for  the 
wash. 

Mr.  PiERREPO.NT.  I  asked  about  clothes  for  the  wash,  and  nothing  else. 

Q.  While  you  were  in  Carroll  prison,  did  you  not  state  in  the  presence  of 
two  other  persons  that  the  reason  you  had  no  clean  clothes  there,  or  was  short 
of  clean  clothes,  was  that  you  had  left  your  clothes  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  to  go  into 
the  wash  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  say  that  to  Mr.  Ford  and  Mr.  Carland  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  that  I  remember.  I  had  been  two  weeks  in  Canada,  and  by 
the  time  I  got  back  the  clothes  I  had  on  were  pretty  dirty.  I  had  clean  clothes 
at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  but  was  not  permitted  to  go  and  get  them. 

Q.  Did  you  not  state  that  you  had  left  your  clothes  there  to  go  into  the 
wash  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  always  put  my  clothes  out  to  wash  by  Monday. 

Q.  You  say  that  Mr.  Surratt  went  to  New  York  and  saw  Mr.  Booth.  Give 
us  the  date  of  that  visit. 

A.  In  the  early  part  of  February,  1865. 

Q.  What  date  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  date.     In  the  early  part ;  between  the  1st  and  22d. 

Mr.  Bradley.  There  are  only  28  or  29  days  in  February.  Can't  you  fix  the 
time  any  nearer  than  you  have  done  ? 

A.  I  remember  it  was  before  the  22d. 

Q.  You  cannot  fix  it  any  nearer  than  some  time  within  twenty-one  days  ? 

A.  I  remember,  too,  it  was  in  the  early  part  of  1865  that  Surratt  went  to 
New  York,  while  a  man  by  the  name  of  Howell  was  in  the  house;  and  he  was 
there  in  the  early  part  of  1865. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  can  fix  the  time  when  Surratt  said  he  went  to  New  York 
and  said  he  saw  Booth  ? 

A.  I  cannot  fix  the  date  positively. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  it  within  ten  days  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  merely  remember  that  he  went  to  New  York,  and  that  it 
was  in  the  early  part  of  February,   1865. 

Q.  You  can't  fix  it  within  ten  days  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  first  ten  days  of  February  1 


418  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir.  If  there  was  any  peculiar  circumstance  to  recall  it  to  my 
mind,  I  could  recall  it  by  that  circumstance. 

Q.  Did  he  go  to  New  York  twice  in  the  month  of  February  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  he  go  to  New  York  once  in  the  month  of  January  and  once  in 
the  month  of  February  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember  of. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  he  did  not  1 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  went  to  New  York,  and  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection he  went  to  New  York  in  the  early  part  of  February,  1865. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  you  what  he  went  for  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  what  he  went  for  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  he  tell  you  he  went  there  to  see  a  lady  and  to  bring  her  back  home 
with  him,  and  did  he  not  bring  her  back  home  with  him  ? 

A.  A  lady  did  come  back  with  him 

Q.  Did  not  he  tell  you  that  he  went  there  for  that  purpose  ] 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Dill  not  he  tell  you  he  was  going,  and  when  he  came  back  did  he  not  tell 
you,  in  the  presence  of  others,  that  he  had  been  to  New  York,  and  where  he  met 
that  lady  1 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  that? 

A,  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  that  particular  circumstance. 

Q.  Where  was  it  he  told  you  that  he  had  seen  Booth,  and  that  Booth  had  an 
elegant  house  there  ? 

A.  In  his  own  house. 

Q.  When? 

A.  After  he  got  back. 

Q.  How  long  ? 

A.  A  few  days. 

Q.  How  many  days  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Ten  days  or  a  week  ? 

A    I  do  not  know  the  day,  hour,  and  minute  of  everything. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  have  testified  to  so  many  dates,  and  with  such  particu- 
larity, that  I  want  to  see  how  much  you  remember  about  others.  It  is  not  my 
suggestion  ;  it  is  yours. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  that  he  told  you  he  had  been  to  New  York,  and  had 
seen  Booth,  and  that  Booth  lived  in  an  elegant  house,  and  so  on,  did  he  or  not 
tell  you  then  that  he  had  brought  a  lady  back  with  him  1 

A.   He  told  me  that  he  had  brought  a  lady  back  with  him. 

Q.  Did  he  not  tell  you  that  he  went  on  after  that  lady  to  bring  her  on  to 
Washington  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember ;  he  may  have  said  so. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  remember  of  his  telling  where  he  met  her  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  his  telling  you  that  he  met  her  on  the  ferry-boat  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  gone  1 

A.  But  a  few  days. 

Q.  What  is  a  few  days  in  your  calendar  ? 

A.  Two  or  three  days. 

Q.  Was  it  more  than  three  days  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  was. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  419 

Q.  Was  it  more  than  two  days  and  nights  ? 

A.  About  that. 

Q.  AVas  it  more  than  one  day  and  two  nights  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember,  then,  of  his  leaving  here  in  the  evening,  going  to 
New  York,  and  coming  back  by  the  next  night,  and  bringing  this  lady  with  him  ? 

A.  I  remember  his  bringing  a  lady. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  she  arrive  ? 

A.  In  the  afternoon. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  stay  ? 

A.  She  did  not  come  into  the  house  at  all;  not  that  I  saw. 

Q.  Which  way  did  she  go  ? 

A.  I  was  not  inside ;  but  Miss  Anna  Surratt  told  me 

Mr.  Bradley.  Never  mind  what  she  told  you. 

Witness.  Then  I  can't  state.  I  did  not  see  her  go  away  from  the  house  at 
all. 

Q.  How  did  she  come  to  the  house  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  her  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  her  on  that  occasion,  but  some  time  afterwards. 

Q.  On  that  occasion,  when  John  Sun-att  went  to  New  Yoi-k  and  brought  a 
lady  back,  you  did  not  see  her  at  all  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  arrive  in  the  afternoon  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  if  you  didn't  see  her  at  all? 

A.  Well,  I  know  it  from  circumstances. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  John  H.  Surratt  come  to  speak  to  you  of  meeting  Booth 
at  this  elegant  mansion  in  Ncav  York? 

A.  His  sister  asked  him  whether  he  had  seen  Booth  when  he  was  in  New 
York,  and  he  said  "yes,"  and  described  the  furniture  in  the  house,  &:c. 

Q.  Did  not  he  tell  you  ? 

A.  He  told  me  in  the  presence  of  his  sister.     He  told  it  to  both  of  us. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  in  your  examination  in  chief  that  he  told  you  he  had 
been  to  New  York  and  had  seen  Booth,  and  mentioned  what  an  elegant  house 
he  had,  and  so  on.     Now  you  say  he  mentioned  this  to  his  sister  ? 

A.  He  told  me  and  he  told  her. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     His  sister  put  the  question,  I  believe. 

Q.  You  did  not  make  any  inquiry  about  it  at  all  ? 

A.  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  if,  in  your  communication  with  any  officer  of  the  govern- 
ment, you  have  been  told  that  if  you  did  not  testify  to  more  than  you  had 
stated,  they  would  hang  you  too  1 

A.  No,  sir,  I  will  say  just  here  that  before  the  trial  in  1865  I  detailed  my 
evidence  to  Mr.  Stanton,  and  Mr.  Pitman  took  it  down  in  short-hand. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  (To  the  witness.)  Now  you  may  stop.  The  question  has 
been  answered,  but  if  your  honor  pleases  it  was  an  improper  question,  and  I 
hope  no  more  such  will  be  asked.  I  do  not  suppose  they  can  inquire  of  the 
■witness  what  the  officer  of  the  government  asked  him. 

The  Court.  They  may  inquire  of  the  witness  whether  he  has  not  made  to 
some  officer  of  the  government  a  different  statement  than  that  which  he  has  made 
here  in  giving  his  testimony.  I  do  not  appi-ehend  that  they  can  go  into  every 
conversation  that  he  has  ever  had  during  his  lifetime  with  any  and  everybody. 

Mr.  PiERRRPONT.  I  do  not  ask  that  this  question  be  stricken  out.  I  only 
ask  that  such  questions  be  not  continued  by  counsel. 


420  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  now  pi-opose  to  ask  the  witness  whether,  in  the  presence  of 
Mr.  Maddox  and  others,  an  officer  of  the  government  did  not  tell  him  that,  unless 
he  testified  to  more  than  he  had  stated,  they  would  hang  him  too. 

Mr.  PiKRREPONT.  I  object. 

The  Court.  Is  the  question,  unless  he  testified  to  more  here  than  he  had 
stated  to  somebody  else  1 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  object  if  it  relates  to  this  trial.  If  it  relates  te 
evidence  that  was  to  have  been  given  on  some  former  trial,  then,  I  conceive,  the 
question  is  not  a  proper  one. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  know,  sir,  to  what  trial  it  relates.  I  expect  to  show, 
however,  that  this  witness  is  testifying,  and  testifying  here,  under  threats. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Testifying  here  under  threats'? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Then  I  withdraw  my  objection. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Now  I  will  repeat  the  question:  "I  ask  you  if  an  officer  of 
the  government  did  not  tell  you  that  unless  you  testified  to  more  than  you  had 
already  stated  they  would  hang  you  too  ?  " 

Witness.  At  this  trial  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  ask  you  if  he  did  not  in  the  presence  of  Mr,  Maddox  and 
gome  others  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  ever  heard  it.  It  is  news  to  me.  I  never  had 
any  fear  of  hanging. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  John  A.  Bingham  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  any  such  thing  pass  from  him  to  you? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  object. 

The  Court,  I  thought  you  waived  your  objection  1 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  did  in  relation  to  the  other;  but  now  he  brings  in  per- 
sons and  asks  if  Mr.  Bingham 

The  Court.  Mr.  Bingham  was  an  officer  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Merrick.  He  is  now. 

Mr,  Pierrepont.  I  did  not  know  it.     He  is  a  member  of  Congress. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  thought  he  was  conducting  the  preliminary  examination  of 
witnesses  in  this  case. 

Mr,  Pierrepont.  I  did  not  know  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  expect  to  show  that  he  has  been  examining  witnesses  pre- 
liminary to  the  trial  of  this  case. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  do  not  know  what  the  counsel  may  expect  to  show. 
Whenever  that  question  comes  up,  then  will  be  the  proper  time  to  discuss  it. 
But  now,  as  I  understand  it,  the  question  is  as  to  what  Mr.  Bingham  said  in  re- 
lation to  some  other  trial. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  question  is  asked  the  witness  with  regard  to  what  was 
said  to  him  in  reference  to  his  testimony.  We  do  not  say  at  what  particular 
trial,  f  ir  we  may  not  know.     We  expect  to  find  out  what  passed. 

After  some  further  discussion — 

The  Court  said:  I  ruled  the  other  day  that  no  inquiry  could  be  made  of  a 
witness  in  reference  to  any  promise  made,  or  threat  held  out,  to  induce  him  to  give 
or  to  withhold  testimony  before  the  military  commission,  but  that  evidence  of 
any  promise  or  threat  held  out  to  him  to  influence  the  character  of  the  testimony 
to  be  given  on  this  trial  was  proper,  and  would  be  allowed  to  go  to  the  jury, 

Mr,  Merrick.  Suppose,  you  honor,  those  promises  or  threats  were  made  with 
a  view  of  affecting  the  testimony  of  witness  wi*^h  regard  to  John  H.  Surratt, 
would  it  be  proper  in  that  case  to  give  evidence  of  them  1 

The  Court.  Yes,  sir;  in  reference  to  the  trial  of  John  H.  Surratt  for  the 
murder  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then,  under  that  riiling  of  your  honor,  I  submit  we  have  a 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  421 

right  to  the  evidence,  for  John  H.  Siirratt  was  inchided  in  the  indictment  under 
which  the  other  parties  were  tried  before  the  military  commission. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  know  that. 

Mr.  PrERREPONT.  He  was  not  tried  there. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Your  honor  knows  it  as  a  matter  connected  with  the  judicial 
history  of  the  country. 

The  Court.  I  know  he  was  not  on  his  trial  there. 

Mr.  Merrick.  He  was  included  in  the  indictment. 

The  Court.  You  know,  Mr.  Merrick,  as  well  as  the  court  does,  that  that  was 
no  trial  of  John  H.  Surratt. 

Mr.  PiRRREPONT.  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  found  out  he  was  not  on  trial. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Not  until  after  they  had  gotten  together  the  testimony.  They 
expected  to  have  him  before  them  Avhen  they  were  preparing  the  testimony. 

The  Court.  That  court  tried  only  such  persons  as  they  had  before  them ; 
and  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  John  H.  Surratt  was  not  before  them. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  all  very  true,  but  the  testimony  was  prepared  with  a 
view  to  all  of  them. 

The  District  Attorney.  He  is  not  mentioned  in  the  charges  and  specifi- 
cations. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  think  he  is. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  he  is  or  is  not. 

Mr.  Bradley  reserved  an  exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  court. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  T.  Jarboe  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  say  I  know  George  T.  Jarboe,  but  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  being  in  the  Old  Capitol,  or  Carroll  prison,  and  met  there  a  man  by 
the  name  of  Jarboe.  I  do  not  know  whether  his  name  is  ''  George  T."  or  not. 
There  were  two  Jarboes  there,  father  and  son. 

Q.  I  think  you  stated  here  to-day  that  on  the  morning  after  the  assassination 
of  the  President  you  went  before  the  government  officers  ? 

A.  Not  exactly  government  officers  ;  city  government  officers. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  did,  I  believe,  correct  it,  and  said  to  Mr.  Richards — that 
you  went  to  Mr.  Richards  and  made  a  disclosure  of  all  you  knew  about  it. 

Witness.  I  did  not  see  Mr.  Richards  that  morning.  I  said  I  went  to  Mr. 
Richards's  office,  and  saw  two  men  who  were  employed  by  Mr.  Richards,  Messrs. 
Clarvoe  and  McDevitt. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  Avent  to  Mr.  Richards  and 
made  a  disclosure  of  all  you  knew  about  it. 

A.  I  did  not  say  I  made  a  disclosure  of  all  I  knew  about  it,  because  I  knew 
nothing  at  all  of  the  assassination.  I  had  my  suspicions,  and  stated  substan- 
tially the  facts,  giving  a  description  of  John  Surratt  and  Booth. 

Q.  While  you  were  confined  in  Carroll  prison  did  you  tell  Mr.  Jarboe  that 
the  next  morning,  Avhile  you  were  going  to  your  place  of  business,  you  were 
arrested  by  one  of  Baker's  detectives,  and  carried  before  Mr.  Stanton  and  sev- 
eral other  officers. 

A.  That  is  perfect  news  to  me. 

Q.  Your  memory  is  very  good  about  that  ? 

A.  1  went  to  Mr.  Richards's  office. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  am  asking  you  in  regard  to  what  you  stated  to  Mr.  Jarboe,  in 
Carroll  prison. 

A.  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Neither  to  him  nor  to  any  one  else  in  prison  1 

A.  No,  sir.     None  of  Baker's  detectives  ever  arrested  me. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  you  told  Jarboe  ? 

A.  I  have  stated  to  you  that  the  expression  is  perfectly  new  to  me — like 
new  music. 

Q.  Were  you  or  not  carried  before  Mr.  Stanton  ? 


422  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  was  not  carried  before  Mr.  Stanton. 

Q.  Did  you  go  before  Mr.  Stanton  in  the  custody  of  anybody  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  1 

A.  On  one  Sunday  morning,  the  30th  of  April,  as  I  was  walking  down  the 
street  very  leisurely,  smoking  a  cigar,  I  met  Mr.  Burnett.  He  invited  me  to 
his  office  and  told  me  to  be  seated.  He  did  not  arrest  me.  He  told  me  Mr. 
Stanton  would  like  to  see  me.  I  did  go  before  Mr.  Stanton.  That  was  the 
first  and  only  time  I  ever  had  an  interview  with  Edwin  M.  Stanton. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  this  young  man  in  prison  that  when  Baker's  detectives 
had  carried  you  before  Secretary  Stanton  and  several  other  officers,  they  of  course 
asked  you  if  you  knew  anything  of  the  parties  engaged  in  the  plot  to  murder 
the  President;  and  that  you  said,  "  1  do  not?" 

A.  I  did  not  know  whether  these  parties  were  or  were  not  engaged  in  this 
conspiracy. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  did  not  tell  Jarboe,  and  some  one  else  in  Carroll  prison, 
that  being  taken  before  Mr.  Stanton,  and  interrogated  as  to  what  you  knew,  if 
you  knew  anything  of  the  parties  engaged  in  the  plot  to  murder  the  President, 
you  did  not  say  you  did  not  know  anything  about  it? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  Do  you  say  you  did  not  tell  them  1 

A.  I  gave  Mr.  Stanton  all  the  information  that  was  in  my  possession  at  that 
time. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  the  persons  in  prison  in  regard  to  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  having  said  anything  of  the  kind  to  Jarboe  at  all. 

Q.  Do  you  say  you  did  not  ? 

A.  I  say  it  is  news  to  me. 

Q.  Is  not  your  memory  as  distinct  about  that  as  anything  else  ? 

A.  How  can  I  tell  ?  1  say  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  so. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  have  a  right  to  an  affirmative  or  a  negative  answer. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes,  sir;  if  he  can  give  one. 

The  Court.  If  he  says  he  cannot  possibly  remember,  then,  of  course,  there 
is  an  end  of  it.  The  counsel,  however,  has  the  right  to  test  his  memory  on  the 
point,  and  to  endeavor,  if  possible,  to  get  a  positive  answer. 

Mr.  Bradley,  I  will  repeat  the  question, 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  you  did  or  did  not  state  what  I  have  repeated,  to 
the  parties  mentioned? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  so.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  did 
not  say  so.     I  never  heard  of  it  until  to-day. 

By  a  Ji'ROR.  Who  is  Mr.  Burnett? 

A.  He  was  the  assistant  judge  advocate  on  the  trial.  He  was  conducting 
the  preliminary  examination. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Jarboe,  or  any  one  else  there,  that  you  thought  some- 
thing was  going  on,  because  you  met  so  many  rebels  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  conversation. 

Q,  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  wanted  to  go  south,  and  could  not  go,  because 
John  Surratt  could  not  get  you  employment  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  did  not.  AH  these  things  astonish  me,  I  never  heard  of  them 
before. 

Q.  That  John  Surratt  could  not  make  any  arrangement  to  get  you  across 
the  river  ? 

A.  I  never  asked  John  Surratt  to  get  me  across  the  river. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  Jarboe,  and  these  other  people  that  you  did ;  that  you 
could  not  go  because  he  c  juld  not  make  an  arrangement  to  get  you  across  the 
river? 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  423 

Q.  What  was  your  position  under  the  government? 

A.  I  was  a  clerk  in  the  office  of  the  Commi:?sary  General  of  Prisoners,  a 
branch  office  of  the  War  Department. 

Q.  Did  that  bring  you  into  such  a  position  that  you  could  see  what  the  move- 
ments of  the  armies  were  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  from  time  to  time  take  some  trouble  to  ascertain  the  move- 
ments of  the  army,  and  what  was  going  on  in  the  opex-atious  of  war  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  bureau  I  was  in  had  charge  of  specific  matters  appertaining 
to  prisoners.     I  had  charge  of  the  funds  of  rebel  prisoners  of  war. 

Q.  Did  you  have  charge  in  that  bureau  also  of  the  business  that  related  to 
the  locality  where  the  prisoners  were,  and  the  number  of  prisoners  at  eacb 
point  ? 

A.  The  names  of  the  various  prisons  were  kept  in  a  book,  but  not  the  names 
of  the  different  prisoners. 

Q.  Was  the  number  of  prisoners  in  each  prison  kept  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  access  to  the  number  of  prisoners  in  each  prison  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  could  only  arrive  at  an  approximate  idea  of  the  number  of 
prisoners  by  calculating  in  this  way  :  By  finding  so  many  thousand  prisoners 
to  have  received  so  many  thousand  rations  a  month,  and  then  proceed  to  add  or 
multiply  as  the  case  might  be  in  order  to  ascertain  the  whole  number  of  prison- 
ers.    It  was  at  best,  however,  only  an  approximate  estimate. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  make  an  approximate  estimate  in  that  Avay  ? 

A.  I  did  for  the  office  several  times. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  take  any  such  estimate  out  of  the  office  with  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  furnish  information  to  anybody  outside  of  the  office  of  the 
movements  of  the  army  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  them  myself.  I  was  not  in  a  position  to  give  that  inform- 
ation. 

Q.  I  ask  if  you  ever  furnished  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  furnished  to  any  person  whom  you  met  at  Mrs.  Surratt's 
house  information  in  regard  to  the  movements  of  the  army,  the  force  in  the  field, 
the  locality  of  prisoners,  or  the  number  of  prisoners  ? 

A.  I  said  something  to  Howell  on  the  subject,  when  he  was  reading  one 
evening  from  the  Evening  Star  the  number  of  rebel  prisoners.  The  number  of 
rebel  prisoners  being  exchanged  was  mentioned  in  the  Star  from  time  to  time, 
and  on  this  occasion  he  was  reading  what  was  published. 

Q.  What  Howell  is  that  ? 

A.  Howell  was  a  blockade  runner,  introduced  to  me  by  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  And  that  is  the  only  time  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  that  you  ever  furnished 
information,  or  stated  anything  in  regard  to  the  number  of  prisoners  at  any  one 
point,  or  where  the  locality  was,  or  of  the  movements  of  the  army  ? 

Mr.  riEUREPONT.  1  object  to  the  question  as  irrelevant. 

The  Court.  I  cannot  at  the  present  time  see  the  relevancy  of  it. 

Mr.  PiERRKPO.NT.  I  object  to  it,  unless  counsel  can  show  how  it  is  at  all 
relevant. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  think, before  we  are  done,  the  gentleman  will  see  that  it  has 
some  relevaiicy. 

Mr.  PlERREPOXT.  If  you  say  we  will,  I  will  withdraw  my  objection. 

The  CoLRT.  Counsel  will  proceed  with  the  examination. 

Witness.  I  could  state  precisely  the  amount  of  business  that  John  Surratt 
ever  did  at  our  office. 

Mr.  Bradley.  1  don't  want  you  to  state  anything  more  than  what  I  ask  you 


424  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

to  state.  I  will  ask  you  questions  on  such  points  as  I  desire  informal  ion  upon, 
and  yon  can  go  to  counsel  on  the  other  side  for  anything  else.  I  will  ask  you  a 
question,  however,  in  regard  to  that ;  whether  you  did  not  during  the  recess  go 
to  counsel  and  suggest  a  further  examination  as  to  matters  upon  which  you  had 
been  examined. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  them  they  had  omitted  to  ask  you  about  some  things  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  I  did  not  suggest  anything. 

Q.  When  you  were  brought  back  to  the  stand  were  you  not  interrogated  in 
regard  to  the  very  matters  to  which  you  had  called  the  attention  of  counsel  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  told  us  yesterday,  I  believe,  that  you  reside  in  Philadelphia  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  are  you  engaged  in  1 

A.  Nothing  now. 

Q.  What  have  you  been  engaged  in  lately  ? 

A.  The  custom-house,  Philadelphia. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  it  ? 

A.  Last  fall. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  ? 

A.  I  was  told  I  was  not  wanted  any  longer ;  that  I  had  voted  the  radical  re- 
publican ticket. 

Q.  Is  that  all  ? 

A.  That  is  all  I  remember. 

Q.  You  say  now  that  all  that  was  alleged  against  you,  and  which  led  to  your 
resignation,  dismissal,  or  whatever  it  was,  was  that  you  voted  the  radical  repub- 
lican ticket  1 

A.  I  don't  care  what  was  alleged  against  me  ;  that  is  none  of  my  business. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  asked  what  was  alleged  against  you  as  the  cause  of  your 
removal  from  office  ;  now  I  ask  you  if  you  were  not  removed  from  that  office  for 
opening  drawers  with  keys  without  authority  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  that  I  was.  I  have  heard  of  that  thing  before.  I  was 
employed  in  a  room  where  I  had  access  to  everything  ;  I  was  a  clerk  in  that 
room,  and  it  Avas  my  duty  to  have  access  to  eveiything. 

Q.  Was  it  your  duty  to  open  drawers  to  which  you  had  not  the  proper  keys  ? 

A.  I  was  privileged  at  any  time  to  go  either 

Q.  Was  that  not  one  of  the  grounds,  if  not  the  ground,  upon  which  you  were 
removed  from  office  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was. 

Q.  Was  that  not  stated  to  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  is  the  collector  there  ? 

A.  William  F.  Johnson  was  collector  at  that  time. 

Q.  Who  is  the  principal  clerk  in  charge  of  the  branch  office  where  you  were  ? 

A.  ]\[r.  Berchey. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Saturday,  June  29,  1867. 
The  court  met  at  10  a.  m. 

Cross-examination  of  Louis  J.  Weichmann  continued  : 

By  Mr,  Bradley  : 

Q.  I  asked  you  yesterday  to  fix  as  accurately  as  you  could  the  date  of  your 
introduction  to  Dr.  Mudd  and  Booth.  If  I  understand  you  correctly,  it  was  aa 
early  as  the  2 2d  of  December,  1864  ? 

A.  I  did  not  fix  the  22d  of  December ;  I  fixed  the  time  as  being  before  the 
time  when  Surratt  was  employed  by  the  Adams  Express  Company,  or  as  being  be- 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT     '         425 

fore  his  visit  to  Port  Tobacco,  which  was  early  in  January,  1865.  These  two 
circumstances  were  not  in  my  memory  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  assassins; 
if  they  had  been,  I  might  have  fixed  the  dates  more  positively. 

Q,  Can  you  state  whether  it  Avas  before  or  after  Surratt  went  with  the  Adams 
Express  Company  ? 

A.  I  am  not  positive  about  that ;  I  think  it  was  before  he  went  there  ;  I  am 
positive  as  to  the  room  Booth  occupied  at  that  time 

Q.  I  as^k  you  to  confine  yourself  to  the  question  I  put.  On  your  examination 
before  the  military  commission,  did  you  not  state  that  you  made  your  first  ac- 
quaintance with  Dr.  Mudd  about  the  15th  of  January,  18G5  ? 

A.  I  said  so  yesterday — that  was  the  best  of  my  recollection  at  that  time.  If 
the  government  had  permitted  me  to  see  the  register  of  the  National  Hotel  to 
identify  the  room  I  could  have  fixed  it  positively. 

Q.  Did  you  not  state  that  you  were  sure  it  was  after  the  1st  of  January  ? 

A.  As  far  as  my  recollection  went  at  that  time,  I  did, 

Q,  In  answer  to  the  question,  ''  Why  are  you  sure  ?  "  did  you  not  say  "  From 
a  letter  I  received  at  that  time — about  the  16th  of  January — and  from  a  visit  to 
Baltimore,  and  certain  events  which  took  place  about  that  time  "1 

A.  I  said  that,  sir.  I  have  that  letter  in  my  possession.  I  find  that  the  let- 
ter that  I  received  was  of  a  later  date,  the  19th  of  January,  1865,  which  called 
me  to  Baltimore. 

Q.  In  what  way  is  that  letter  or  that  date  connected  with  your  first  introduc- 
tion to  Dr.  Mudd  and  Mr.  Booth  ? 

A.  Merely  because  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  the  assassins  I  was  impressed 
that  I  received  this  letter  about  the  same  time. 

Q.  Is  that  still  your  impression  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  letter  I  received  on  the  19th  of  January  called  me  to  Balti- 
more. 

Q.  Then  when  you  were  examined,  if  I  am  correct  as  to  the  date,  on  the 
12th  of  May,  less  than  a  month  after  the  assassination,  and  at  that  time  you 
fixed  this  first  acquaintance  about  the  middle  of  January  ;  now,  after  a  lapse  of 
two  years,  what  has  passed  that  enables  you  to  fix  it  with  greater  certainty  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  nothing  except  the  room  at  the  National  Hotel.  I  made  it  my 
business  to  go  to  that  room  to  find  out  positively  about  what  I  was  testifying. 

Q.  Have  you  found  out  by  the  date  at  which  Booth  registered  himself  at  the 
National  Hotel  ? 

A.  I  looked  for  Booth's  name  and  found  it  had  been  cut  out. 

Q.  My  question  is,  did  you  find  out  by  looking  at  the  National  Hotel  register 
when  that  room  was  occupied  by  Booth  ? 

A.  I  lookf'd  at  the  National  Hotel  register  of  the  22d  of  December,  1864, 
and  Booth's  name  was  not  there.  I  went  to  the  room  before  I  looked  at  the 
register. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  the  room.  You  will  please  answer  my  ques- 
tion. 

A.  I  knew  that  room  was  assigned  to  him  on  the  22d  of  December  before  the 
trial  of  the  assassins,  because  the  date  is  in  the  book  there. 

Q.  The  15th  of  January? 

A.  No,  sir.     The  22d  of  December,  1864. 

Q  Have  you  ascertained  from  the  National  Hotel  register,  or  otherwise,,  when 
Booth  loft  or  gave  up  room  84  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  not  ascertained  from  that  book  how  long  he  occupied  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  because  Booth's  name  does  not  appear  on  the  National  Hotel 
register  at  all. 

Q.  Was  it  cut  out  before  you  looked  at  that  book  ? 
28 


426  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Who  cut  it  out  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  You  do  not  know,  then,  at  all  that  that  room  was  assigned  to  Booth, 
except  from  the  fact  that  you  saw  him  in  it  ? 

A.  By  that,  and  I  know  by  reading  the  testimony  on  the  trial  of  the  assas- 
sins. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  about  the  testimony  on  that  trial ;  I 'am  asking  you 
now  about  Avhat  you  saw  at  the  National  Hotel. 

A.  I  do  not  know,  from  my  own  knowledge,  that  Booth  occupied  room  84  on 
the  22d  of  December,  1864.     I  know  that  that  interview  was  in  that  room  84. 

Q.  I  want  to  ascertain  from  you,  if  I  can — you  who  have  spoken  of  so  many 
dates — how  you  fix  the  date  of  that  first  introduction  to  Booth  1 

A.  I  have  not  fixed  it  positively. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  it  within  ten  days  1 

A.  I  fixed  it  within  seven  days  yesterday.     Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  thought  you  fixed  it  within  less  than  seven  days  ? 

A.  Five  or  seven  days. 

Q.  That  was  five  or  seven  days  after  the  22d  of  December  1 

A.  No ;  before  Surratt's  employment  by  the  Adams  Express  Company. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  did  not  fix  it  after  the  22d  of  December? 

A.  I  fixed  it  within  five  or  seven  days  of  the  employment  of  Surratt  by 
the  Adams  Express  Company. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  fix  a  day  before  Surratt  went  to  the  Adams  Express  office, 
or  after  he  went  there  ? 

A.  I  said  before. 

Q.  Did  not  you  say  on  your  examination  before  the  military  commission 
that  it  was  during  the  recess  of  Congress  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  positively  whether  Congress  was  in  recess  or  not.  The 
room  had  been  previously  occupied  by  a  member  of  Congress.  From  what 
Booth  said  it  was  my  impression  that  Congress  was  in  session  at  that  time. 

Q.  In  your  examination  before  the  military  commission  did  you  not  state 
that  it  was  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  and  that  the  recess  lasted  only  a  Aveek 
or  ten  days,  or  words  to  that  effect,  and  did  not  you  refer  to  the  recess  of  Con- 
gress as  a  means  of  fixing  the  date  when  you  were  introduced  to  these  parties  ? 

A.  The  whole  matter  of  that  recess  was  this  :  Booth  told  me  the  room  had 
been  previously  occupied  by  a  congressman. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  did  not,  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  state  the 
recess  of  Congress  as  one  of  the  means  of  fixing  the  date  of  your  introduction 
to  these  parties  1 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  You  are  certain  that  it  was  after  the  congressional  holiday  vacation  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  testifying  that  1 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  I  was  certain  at  that  time. 

Q.  Was  this  question  and  answer  given  on  that  trial  :  "  Q.  Have  you  any 
means  of  knowing  that  it  was  after  Christmas  ?  A.  Merely  by  the  fact  of  its 
being  after  the  congressional  holidays,  and  this  member  had  not  returned.  The 
other  congressmen  had  nearly  all  returned,  and  he  was  one  whose  return  had 
been  delayed  for  some  time,  it  appears"  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     Booth  told  me  that  himself. 

Q.  Now,  sir,  do  you  not  know  that  the  congressional  holidays  occurred  about 
the  22d  of  December  and  lasted  about  ten  days  ? 

A.  It  generally  lasted  about  ten  days  or  two  weeks. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  427 

Q.  "Would  that  carry  it  dowu  to  the  loth  of  January  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Could  your  introduction  then  have  occurred  within  five  or  seven  days 
after  the  22d  of  December  ? 

A.  It  might  have  been  possible. 

Q.  Was  it  not  important  on  that  trial  to  fix  your  first  introduction  to  Dr. 
Mudd  about  the  middle  of  January  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  Avas  or  not.  I  testified  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge. 

Q.  Have  you  fixed  it  differently  by  connecting  it  with  other  circumstances  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  After  I  testified,  I  went  with  Colonel  Burnett  down  to  the 
National  Hotel.  I  went  to  room  84  and  at  that  time  positively  identified  it  as 
the  one  occupied  by  Booth  on  this  occasion.  I  asked  Colonel  Burnett  to  recall 
me  and  allow  me  to  state  that  room  84  was  the  one  occupied  by  Booth  on  that 
occasion.     He  said  it  was  not  necessary. 

Q.  Did  you  not  go  down  to  the  Pennsylvania  Hotel  to  ascertain  when  Dr. 
Mudd  was  registered  there  ? 

AViTNESS.  With  Colonel  Burnett? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  know.     With  Colonel  Burnett  or  somebody. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  alone  1 

A.  No,  sir.  On  the  evening  of  the  15th  I  went  to  the  Pennsylvania  House 
with  Mr.  Hollahan. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  about  the  loth  at  all.  I  am  asking  whether  you  did  not 
go  to  that  house  to  see  when  Dr.  Mudd  was  registered  ? 

A.  1  never  looked  at  the  register  of  the  Pennsylvania  House  to  see  whether 
Dr.  Mudd's  name  was  registered  there  or  not. 

Q.  You  said  you  met  Payne  at  Mrs.  Surratt's.  How  often  did  you  meet  him 
there  ? 

A.  Twice,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  ;  I  mean  I  met  him  on  two  occa- 
sions. When  he  was  living  in  the  house  of  course  he  was  there  regularly,  and 
I  saw  him  at  bi'eakfast  and  at  dinner ;  he  was  treated  like  any  member  of  the 
family  ;  when,  therefore,  1  say  I  met  him  twice  I  mean  on  two  different  occasions. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  the  date  when  he  first  came  ? 

A.  I  never  did  fix  the  date  and  cannot  now ;  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of 
February,  I860. 

Q.  On  your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  in  your  answer  to 
that  question,  did  you  or  not  say  that  it  was  about  eight  weeks  before  the  assas- 
sination 1 

A.  Yes;  and  I  do  say  that  it  would  be  nearly  eight  weeks,  as  near  as  I  can 
remember. 

Q.  Now  state  as  well  as  you  can  recollect,  after  you  had  received  Payne  at 
the  door  what  passed  dowu  to  his  seeing  Mrs.  Surratt. 

A.  I  went  to  the  door ;  I  met  a  man  there  with  black  hair  and  black  eyes  ;  I 
did  not  ask  him  what  his  name  was  ;  he  said,  "  Is  Mr.  Surratt  at  home?"  1  said 
he  was  not ;  he  said,  "  Is  Mrs.  Surratt  at  home?"  I  said  she  was ;  he  expressed 
a  desire  to  see  Mrs.  Surratt ;  I  went  into  the  parlor  and  said  to  Mrs.  Surratt 
that  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Wood  was  at  the  door,  and  would  like  to  see 
her  ;  she  requested  me  to  bring  him  in  and  introduce  him. 

Q.  Did  you  state  on  your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  after 
you  had  said  Mr.  Surratt  was  not  at  home,  that  you  said  Mrs.  Surratt  was  at 
home,  and  you  would  introduce  him  to  the  family  if  he  desired  it? 

A.  He  did  desire  it. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  did  not  say  you  would  introduce  him  to  the  fomily  if  he 
desired  it  ? 
■  A.  He  expressed  the  desire  before  I  said  I  would  introduce  him. 


428  TEIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  say  that  be  expressed  a  desire  before  you  said  you  would  intro- 
duce bim  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  because  I  would  bave  politeness  enougb  about  me  not  to  intro- 
duce a  perfect  stranger  to  Mrs.  Surratt  or  any  otber  lady  witbout  first  asking 
ber  consent.     Etiquette  would  teacb  me  tbat. 

Q.  I  do  not  know  tbe  rules  of  etiquette  ;  but  wben  you  stated  tbat  wben  a 
gentleman  inquired  for  Mrs.  Surratt  you  said  you  would  introduce  bim  to  tbe 
family  if  be  desired  it,  I  took  it  for  granted  tbat  you  stated  tbat  before  be 
said  be  desired  it. 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  said  I  did  not. 

Q.  He  expressed  a  desire  to  see  Mrs.  Surratt? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  bad  expressed  a  desire  to  see  Mrs.  Surratt  before  you  bad  told  bim 
you  would  introdixce  bim  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  furtbermore  be  first  gave  his  name  as  Wood  ;  is  tbat  so  ? 

A.  He  bad  given  bis  name  as  Wood. 

Q.  I  will  tbank  you  furtber  to  state  wbetber  on  tbat  trial  you  did  o?  did  not 
say  tbat  Mrs.  Surratt  received  bim  and  spoke  to  bim  as  an  old  acquaintance  ? 

Witness.  At  tbe  first  visit? 

Mr.  Bradlev.  I  ask  you  wbetber  tbese  interrogatories  were  put  and  tbe  an- 
swers given  as  bere  written  down:  "  Q.  You  say  tbat  Payne  paid  a  visit  to 
tbe  Surralts,  and  stopped  only  over  nigbt  during  bis  first  visit?  A.  Yes,  sir.  Q. 
Witb  wbom  did  be  seem  to  bave  business?  A.  He  inquired  for  Mr.  Surratt; 
bis  business  appeared  to  be  witb  Mr.  Sm-ratt.  On  tbe  occasion  of  bis  first  visit 
I  was  in  tbe  parlor  during  tbe  wbole  time.  Q.  He  did  not  appear  to  have  any- 
thing to  say  to  Mrs.  Surratt  ?  A.  He  asked  Mrs.  Surratt  to  play  on  tbe  piano 
for  bim,  and  be  raised  the  piano  cover." 

A.  I  did  not  say  Mrs.  Surratt,  I  said  Miss  Sun-att ;  Mrs.  Sun-att  did  not  play. 

Q.  Was  there  any  effort  there  to  conceal  something  ? 

A,  He  had  no  false  disguise  tbe  first  occasion. 

Q.  Have  you  described  his  having  tbe  moustache  on  the  second  visit? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  1  said  I  found  a  false  moustache. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  what  you  found  in  your  room — I  ask  whether  any  of 
tbese  three  days  be  wore  a  false  moustache  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  he  had  no  disguise  ?  (Reading  from  report  of  military  commission  : 
"  Q.  Was  be  treated  by  5lr.  Surratt  as  an  intimate  friend  ?  A,  He  appeared 
to  be  treated  kindly  by  Mr.  Surratt,  as  if  be  was  an  old  acquaintance.  On  tbe 
occasion  of  bis  second  visit  to  tbe  house  Mr.  Surratt,  wben  meeting  him,  recog- 
nized him  as  though  be  bad  known  bim.")  Do  you  recollect  what  you  stated 
as  to  when  Payne  came  tbe  second  time,  on  tbe  trial  of  tbe  conspirators ;  how 
long  after  tbe  first  visit  ? 

A.  I  did  not  fix  it  at  first  precisely  ;  I  said  it  was  after  the  fourth  of  March ; 
that  he  expressed  some  regret  at  not  being  bere  tbe  fourth  of  March.  After- 
wards I  fixed,  I  believe,  the  thirteenth  of  March  as  the  evening  be  came,  and  I 
said  he  was  there  about  three  days. 

Q.  Did  not  you  state  that  he  came  about  three  weeks  after  his  first  visit  ? 

A.  If  you  will  take  tbe  latter  part  of  February  for  his  first  visit  you  will 
have  just  about  three  weeks  by  the  thirteenth  of  Slarcb. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  I  did,  I  believe. 

Q.  On  this  trial  do  you  recollect  what  day  you  stated  be  came  ? 

A.  1  stated  he  came  on  tbe  evening  of  the  thirteenth  of  March. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  429 

Q.  Now,  will  you  state  how  you  fix  that  date? 

A.  As  being  the  second  evening  before  the  fifteenth;  T  said  so  yesterday. 

Q.  How  did  you  fix  the  fifteenth  ? 

A.  By  the  play  of  Jane  Shore,  which  occui-red  at  that  time, 

Q.  Were  you  not  under  the  impression,  and  did  you  not  swear  at  the  con- 
spiracy trial,  that  Jane  Shore  was  played  a  different  night? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  Carlin,  and  learn  from  him  1 

A.  I  said  yesterday  I  asked  Carlin,  but  the  15th  of  March  was  in  my  mind 
before  I  asked  him. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  the  commission  then  that  Payne's  second  visit  was  two  days 
before  the  performance  of  Jane  Shore  ? 

A.  It  was  two  days  before. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  them  that  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  On  the  former  trial  of  the  conspirators,  did  you  state  at  what  time  Surratt 
returned,  after  Payne's  second  visit  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  you  state  that  on  the  occasion  of  his  second  visit  Mr.  Surratt  met 
him,  and  recognized  him,  as  though  he  had  known  him  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  stated  so.  Surratt  was  in  bed  at  the  time  he 
came. 

Q.  Did  you  state,  on  the  occasion  of  his  second  visit  to  the  house,  Mr.  Sur- 
ratt, when  meeting  him,  recognized  him  as  though  he  had  known  him? 

Witness.  Do  I  state  that  there  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  know.     I  read  from  a  report  of  the  trial. 

A.  It  seems  to  me,  I  did ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  this  occasion,  did  you  not  state  that  the  following  day,  that  is,  the  day 
after  Payne's  amval,  "Surratt  had  come  back;  I  was  sitting  Avriting ;  Payne 
came  in  and  asked,  was  that  Surratt ;  I  said  yes.  Then  Payne  said  he  wanted 
to  see  Surratt  in  private?" 

A.  I  said  that;  but  there  was  a  sort  of  recognition  between  the  two  ;  I  be- 
lieve that  Surratt  knew  Payne  before  he  ever  came  to  the  house. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  for  your  belief ;  at  present  confine  yourself  to  your 
answers  to  the  questions  put,  if  you  please.  Do  you  recollect  your  statement  of 
the  finding  of  that  moustache,  when  you  were  examined  before  that  commission  ? 
I  merely  read  to  you  now  for  the  purpose  of  refreshing  your  memory  : 

"  Did  you  observe  any  traces  of  disguise  about  him,  or  attempted  prepara- 
tions for  disguise  1 

"  A.  I  would  say,  that  one  day,  returning  from  my  ofiice,  I  found  a  false 
moustache  on  the  table  in  my  room.  I  took  the  moustache,  and  threw  it  into 
a  little  toilet-box  I  had  on  the  table.  This  man  Payne  searched  around  the 
table,  and  inquired  for  his  moustache.  I  was  sitting  on  the  chair,  and  did  not 
say  anything.  I  have  retained  the  moustache  since,  and  it  was  found  in  my 
baggage  ;  it  wtis  among  a  box  of  paints  that  I  had  in  my  trunk." 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  made  that  statement. 

Q.  Have  you  stated  here  that  Payne  made  any  inquiry  about  that  moustaches? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  at  the  time  when  I  found  the  folse  moustache  of  Payne's  up  stairs 
in  the  third  story  room,  when  Payne  inquired  for  the  moustache,  I  do  not  recol- 
lect whether  it  was  before  dinner  or  after;  I  was  sitting  in  my  room.  He  felt 
round  for  it.     I  did  not  think  anything  about  that  moustache. 

Q.  Did  you  state  then  that  you  put  on  the  false  moustache,  with  a  pair  of 
spectacles,  and  went  to  the  office. 

A.  I  did  not  state  that ;  I  said  that  I  put  on  my  glasses  ;  that  I  had  Payne's 
moustache  Avith  me,  and  that  I  put  it  on  at  the  office. 

Q,  Did  you  state  before  the  commission  that  you  put  them  on  at  the  office  ? 


430  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SUKRATT. 

A.  The  following  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  state  that  to  the  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  that  was  on  your  direct  examination,  or  on  your 
cross-examination  ?     I  have  looked  for  it,  and  have  failed  to  find  it. 

A.  It  was  on  the  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Johnson  ;  he  brought  that  out.  If 
you  like,  I  will  bring  witnesses  who  saw  me  have  it  on. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  you  can  prove,  but  about  the  testimony  you 
gave  at  the  trial  of  the  conspirators.     I  find  on  your  cross-examination,  this  : 

"  Q.-  What  did  you  intend  to  do  with  it  ? 

"  A.  I  did  not  intend  to  do  anything  with  it ;  I  took  it,  and  exhibited  it  to 
some  of  the  clerks  in  the  office  the  day  afterward,  and  was  fooling  with  it ;  I  put 
oil  a  pair  of  spectacles  and  the  moustache,  and  was  making  fun  of  it." 

Now,  can  you  give  any  reason  why  you  concealed  that  moustache  from 
Payne  when  he  was  inquiring  for  it — why  you  kept  it,  and  keep  it  to  this  time, 
as  I  understand  ? 

A.  I  did  not  think  much  about  it,  at  all.  I  merely  intended  to  have  a  little 
fun  about  it. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  return  it  afterward. 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  ask  for  it  afterward. 

Q.  Were  there  any  suspicions  aroused  in  your  mind  by  finding  that  mous- 
tache ? 

A.  No,  not  at  that  time  ;  I  had  no  particular  suspicions.  I  thought  it  rather 
queer  that  a  Baptist  minister  should  wear  a  false  moustache.  I  said  that,  and 
say  now  that  it  did  look  queer  ;  but  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  intended  to  be 
used  for  anything. 

Q.  Then  your  only  purpose  in  taking  charge  of  it  was  a  little  fun  and  mis- 
chief ? 

A.  That  was  all. 

Q.  And  you  have  kept  it  ever  since? 

A.  0,  no  ;  I  have  not.     The  War  Department  has  got  it  now. 

Q.  Did  not  you  on  that  trial  say,  "  I  thought  it  rather  queer  that  a  Baptist 
preacher  should  use  a  moustache  ;  I  did  not  care  about  having  false  moustaches 
lying  around  on  my  table"? 

A.  I  said  that. 

Q.  Was  that  your  particular  reason  for  not  returning  it? 

A.  O,  no;  if  he  had  asked  for  it  the  next  day  he  would  have  got  it. 

Q.  Was  this  your  testimony  on  the  conspiracy  trial :  "Did  he  not  ask  for  the 
moustache?  Yes,  sir  ;  he  said  where  is  my  moustache."  And  again  :  '' When  he 
came  home,  as  I  understand  you,  he  seemed  to  be  feeling  for  something — said  he 
had  lost  something — did  he  not  ask  for  the  moustache,"  to  which  you  replied, 
"  Yes,  sir." 

A.  Yes ;  I  know  he  asked  for  something  ;  that  was  after  dinner ;  after  he  came 
up  into  my  room. 

Q.  You  say  he  asked,  "where  is  ray  moustache"  ? 

A.  He  felt  round  with  his  hand  for  it. 

Q.  He  felt  round  with  his  hand,  and  said,  "  where  is  my  moustache"  ? 

A.  Yes ;  the  box  was  open  all  the  time — he  could  have  seen  it  there. 

Q.  You  were  asked  whether  he  had  any  preparations  for  disguise.  Was  he 
concealing  that,  or  disguising  it  in  any  way  ? 

A.  It  was  lying  on  the  table  there. 

Q.  He  asked  for  it,  and  called  it  his  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  had  he  been  in  the  house  then  ? 

A.  That  was  the  second  day — the  fifteenth,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  except  at  meal  times  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  431 

A.  I  met  him  iu  the  morning  before  going  to  my  office.  I  met  liim  several 
times.     I  met  liira  iu  my  roorfi,  and  I  met  him  at  dinner. 

Q.  And  in  the  evening  in  the  parlor  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  on  one  or  two  occasions. 

Q.  I  mean  before  the  finding  of  this  moustache  i 

A.  0,  yes ;  I  met  him  in  the  parlor  on  the  evening  of  the  13th. 

Q.  Was  it  on  the  14th  when  that  moustache  was  lost? 

A.  I  think  it  was  the  15th — the  same  day  they  went  to  the  theatre — the  same 
day  Payne  borrowed  my  cloak, 

Q.  Speaking  of  that  cloak — did  you  ever  loan  it  to  anybody  else  in  the 
house  ? 

A.  I  may  have  loaned  it  to  Surratt. 

Q.  Have  you  not  loaned  it  to  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Positively  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember.     I  am  positive  of  that. 

Q,  Can't  you  speak  positively  about  that  ? 

A.  I  speak  positively  of  that — I  never  loaned  it  to  Atzerodt,  Surratt,  himself, 
borrowed  it  from  Pa3me. 

Q.  You  state  distinctly  that  during  the  time  Atzerodt  visited  this  house  you 
never  loaned  that  cloak  to  him  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  I  never  loaned  that  cloak  to  Atzerodt. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  wear  your  hat  and  cloak  both  1 

A.  Not  that  I  remember.  Now  about  that  hat  story — he  did  take  my  hat 
one  day  and  put  it  on.  My  hat  was  very  large.  When  he  p^it  it  on  it  came 
down  over  his  eyes,  and  Surratt  and  he  had  a  good  laugh  over  it.  That  is  all 
about  the  hat  story. 

Q.  That  is  positively  all  that  occurred  about  the  hat  ? 

A.  That  is  all  about  the  hat  stoiy.  Atzerodt  wore  a  slouch  hat — I  wore  a 
high  hat.  On  another  occasion,  on  the  avenue,  he  took  off  my  hat  and  cloak 
and  put  them  on  himself.     I  am  willing  to  state  everything  that  occurred. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  to  volunteer  anything  at  all.  It  will  take  us  long  time 
enough  to  get  out  what  we  want.  You  state  that  on  one  occasion,  in  coming  by 
the  post  office,  Surratt  called  for  a  letter  addressed  to  James  Sturdy,  opened  it 
and  read  it,  and  that  the  letter  was  signed  Wood ;   when  was  that  ? 

A  That  was  before  the  27th  of  March.  I  stated  on  the  trial  of  the  conspir- 
ators that  it  was  about  the  20th  of  March. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  fix  it  when  it  was. 

A.  It  was  before  Payne  returned,  as  I  have  sai'l,  on  the  27th  of  March.  I 
stated  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  that  it  was  about  the  20th  of  March. 

Q.  You  say  Payne  returned  to  this  city  on  the  27th  of  March  ?        • 

A.  So  I  understood  from  an  interview  Surratt  had  at  Mrs.  Murray's  house ; 
I  had  that  impression. 

Q.  When  was  it  that  Surratt  got  that  letter  at  the  post'  office  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  date.  I  stated  that  it  was  about  the  20th  of 
March,  and  before  the  27t:h. 

Q.  Is  there  any  circumstance  that  recalls  it  to  your  mind  1 

A.  The  fact  of  its  being  before  the  27th. 

Q.  When  was  it  you  saw  Surratt  and  Payne  fencing  with  bowie  knives  on 
the  bed  ? 

A.  The  15th — the  same  day  they  went  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  How  long  after  that  was  it  that  this  letter  from  James  Sturdy  was  taken 
from  the  post  office  ? 

A.  A  few  days. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  few  days  ?         * 


432  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

A.  Payne  left  Surratt's  house  on  the  16th ;  Surratt  said  he  had  gone  to 
Baltimore  for  a  few  days.     After  that  I  saw  this  letter  signed  Wood. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  a  few  days  1 

A.  Well,  say  five  or  six  days. 

Q.  On  trial  of  the  conspirators  did  you  or  not  state  that  that  letter  was  re- 
ceived some  two  weeks  after  the  incident  of  the  fencing  with  the  bowie  knives  ? 

A.  Yes;  and  I  fixed  the  20th  of  March. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say,  "Some  two  weeks  after,  Surratt,  when  passing  the  post 
office,  went  to  the  post  office,  and  inquired  for  a  letter  that  was  sent  to  hira 
under  the  name  of  James  Sturdy,  and  I  asked  him  why  a  letter  was  sent  to  him 
under  a  false  name,  and  he  said  he  had  particular  reasons  for  it  ?"  What  day 
was  that  ? 

A.  It  must  have  been  about  two  weeks  after  that  affair. 

Q,  The  latter  end  of  March  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  must  have  been  before  the  20th  of  March.  The  letter  was 
signed  Wood. 

Q.  Now,  if  that  fencing  took  place  on  the  15th  of  March,  how  could  you 
make  out  that  it  was  two  weeks  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  was  mistaken  in  the  time  at  first,  but  I  fixed  the  time,  and  I  fixed  the 
time  of  the  horseback  ride  in  front  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  the  20th  of  March. 
I  think  you  will  find  I  fixed  it  at  that  date. 

Q.  In  regard  to  that  horseback  ride — did  you  state  on  the  other  trial,  "I  will 
state  that  as  near  as  I  can  recollect  it  was  after  the  4th  of  March ;  it  was  the 
second  time  that  Payne  visited  the  house ;  I  returned  from  my  office  one  day  at 
half  past  four  o'clock,"  &;c.  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  gave  an  account  of  these  parties  coming  to  your  room,  and 
state,  "  Some  two  weeks  after,  Surratt  went  to  the  post  office  and  got  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  James  Sturdy;  "  did  you  state  that? 

A  Yes ;  I  afterwards  fixed  the  date  of  that  horseback  ride,  in  answer  to  the 
question  of  Mr.  Cox,  on  the  20th  of  March.  You  will  find  it  in  the  second 
volume. 

Q.  Then  you  have  examined  carefully  the  testimony  that  you  gave  down 
there  ? 

A.  I  have  studied  over  it  for  the  last  two  years.  You  do  not  suppose  that 
such  an  incident  as  that  is  an  every-day  incident  in  my  life,  and  that  I  have  not 
been  thinking  of  it. 

Q.  Is  there  anything  else  you  have  been  doing  ?  Have  you  been  writing  it 
down  ? 

A.  I  have  written  it  down.     I  have  written  about  it  frequently. 

Q.  Hive  you  not  within  the  last  few  months  1 

A.  Yes  ;  I  have  within  the  last  few  months. 

Q.  Have  you  not  written  out  a  very  full  statement  within  the  last  few  months  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  thought  it  was  my  duty. 

Q.  Have  you  not  read  over  and  studied  that  statement  very  carefully  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  read  it  over 

Q.  Have  you  not  read  it  over  more  than  once  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  read  it  over  several  times. 

Q.  Was  not  that  written  statement  carefully  prepared  after  you  had  studied 
your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
report  of  that  trial  ] 

A.  My  written  statement  was  not  made  out  from  the  report  you  have.  I 
then  had  Pitman's  book.  I  referred  to  that  book  because  1  wanted  to  state 
the  facts  seriatim. 

Q.  After  you  made  your  written  statement  from  Pitman's  report,  did  you  not 
examine  those  two  volumes  and  correct  your  statement  from  them  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  433 

This  examination  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  a?  not  in  the  nature  of  a  cross- 
examination,  and  improper. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  hoped  he  should  not  be  suspected  of  getting  in  anything 
illegitimate.  It  was  perfectly  competent  to  ask  the  witness  whether  he  had  not 
prepared  his  evidence. 

Objection  overruled, 

Q.  You  will  now  answer  the  question  whether  you  made  or  had  prepared  a 
written  statement  of  what  y<  u  knew,  or  what  you  could  testify  to  in  this  case, 
or  whether  you  did  not  have  two  volumes  of  the  Boston  report,  and  did  not 
revise  your  statement  by  that  report. 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  deny  that  you  did  not  make  or  have  made  a  written  statement, 
and  correct  that  written  statement  after  going  over  these  two  volumes  ] 

A.  I  do  not  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  not  done  it  within  the  four  months  past  1 

A.  I  have  not  had  these  two  volumes  until  within  the  last  two  weeks. 

Q.  I  do  not  care  abou  tthat.  I  ask  you  to  answer  the  question.  I  ask  you 
again,  if  you  did  not  prepare  a  written  statement  before  you  Avent  before  the 
grand  jury  in  this  case. 

A.  I  wrote  out  a  statement  two  years  ago, 

Q.  Did  you  not  wiite  out  a  statement  after  Surratt  was  captured,  and  have 
that  written  statement  in  your  possession  at  the  time  you  were  examined  before 
the  grand  jury? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Where  was  it  ? 

A.  I  left  it  with  the  assistant  district  attorney. 

Q.  Did  not  you  present  it  to  the  grand  jury  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  the  district  attorney.  It  was  not  proper  to  disclose 
what  took  place  before  the  grand  jury. 

Mr.  BitADLEY  said  a  witness  could  be  asked  what  he  swore  to  before  the 
grand  jury  ;  Avhether  a  grand  juror  could  be  called  to  contradict  him  was  an- 
other question. 

The  Court  ruled  that  witness  could  be  asked  whether  he  made  a  written 
statement. 

Witness.  I  had  a  written  statement  with  me  in  the  city  at  that  time,  but  I 
think  I  left  it  with  the  assistant  district  attorney.  I  did  not  read  that  state- 
ment to  the  grand  jury,  and  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge'  I  did  not  have  it 
with  me. 

Q.  Did  you  not  see  that  statement  lying  on  the  table  before  the  grand  jury  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  if  it  was  there  it  is  news  to  me. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  would  not  at  this  time,  in  the  condition  of  health  of  the 
court,  argue  the  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  asking  the  witness  whether  he 
did  not  testify  from  a  written  statement  before  the  grand  jury. 

The  Court  stated  that  there  was  no  secrecy  enjoined  upon  witnesses  before 
the  grand  jury,  aud  in  his  judgment  a  communication  made  to  them  would  not 
be  privileged. 

The  District  Attorney  believed  it  was  not  proper  to  require  a  witness  to 
disclose  his  testimony  before  the  grand  inquest,  and  desired  to  present  authori- 
ties to  that  point  before  the  question  should  be  definitely  decided. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  rather  than  have  an  argument  in  the  condition  of  the 
health  of  the  court,  he  would  waive  the  question. 

Q  I  now  ask  you  whether,  at  the  time  of  your  examination  before  the  grand 
jury,  there  was  not  a  copy  of  your  written  statement  lying  on  the  table  of  the 
clerk  of  the  grand  jury  1 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  And  can  you  state  whether  you  were  or  not  examined  from  a  parcel  of 


434  TEIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

papers  lying  before  them,  and  which  were  turned  over  in  the  progress  of  your 
examination  1 

A.  This  is  all  news  to  me ;  I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  before. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  he  understood  the  examination  on  this  point  was  not  to 
be  pressed. 

Mr  Bradley  said  he  would  not  press  it  further. 

Q   I  now  come  down  to  Atzerodt,  and  want  to  know  when  you  first  met  hira? 

A.  I  met  him  in  the  latter  part  of  January,  1865. 

Q.  Can  you  come  any  nearer  to  it  than  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  it  was  about  three  or  four  weeks  after  my  first  introduction  to 
Booth. 

Q.  If  your  first  introduction  to  Booth  was  the  15th  of  January,  then  you 
met  Atzerodt  about  the  second  or  third  week  in  February  ? 

A.  I  met  Atzerodt  several  days  after  Surratt's   return  from  Port  Tobacco. 

Q.  I  ask  you  now  in  reference  to  your  introduction  to  Booth ;  you  met 
Atzerodt  how  many  weeks  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  stated  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  some  three  weeks. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  now  1 

A.  I  say  from  three  to  four  weeks  after  my  introduction  to  Booth.  Atzerodt 
came  to  the  house  about  a  week  after  Surratt's  return  from  Port  Tobacco. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  at  the  house  1 

A.  I  saw  him  very  frequently;  Surratt  introduced  me  to  him,  as  he  did  to 
every  one  of  iLe  party. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Will  you  be  good  enough  to  answer  my  questions,  and  not 
show  your  spirit  to  Surratt  as  you  are  doing  constantly. 

The  District  Attorney  said  he  was  not  aware  that  the  witness  had  shown 
any  improper  spirit  towards  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradley  replied  that  he  had,  and  this  was  the  fourth  time  this  morning. 

The  Court  cautioned  the  witness  to  answer  the  questions  put  to  him  and 
there  stop. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  liim  there  ? 

A.  Very  frequently. 

Q.  When  was  the  last  time  you  saw  him  there  ? 

A.  I  met  him  the  second  of  April,  when  he  had  an  interview  with  Mrs. 
SuiTatt. 

Q.  Then,  between  the  time  you  first  saw  him,  which  was  some  time  in 
February 

Witness.  No,  the  latter  part  of  January. 

Q.  You  now  say  in  the  latter  part  of  January  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  say  on  the  other  trial  that  your  introduction  to  Booth  was  on 
the  15th  of  January  ] 

A.  I  said  about  the  15th  of  January,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  at  that 
time. 

Q.  Did  not  you  fix  the  date,  by  certain  outside  incidents,  as  the  15th  of 
January ;  and  did  not  you  say  you  met  Atzerodt  four  weeks  after  your  intro- 
duction to  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  said  so. 

Q.  And  I  now  ask  whether  you  have  changed  the  time  of  your  introduction 
to  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  changed  the  time  of  my  introduction  to  Booth.  I  should 
have  changed  the  time  while  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  was  going  on  if  I  had 
been  permitted  to  do  so. 

Q.  During  that  time  you  say  you  frequently  saw  Atzerodt  in  the  house ;  did 
you  not  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  say  you  had  seen  him  as  many  as  twenty 
times  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  435 

A.  I  think  I  said  as  many  as  ten  or  fifteen  times. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  on  that  trial  you  had  seen  him  at  that  house  as  many  as 
twenty  times  ? 

A.  I  did  not  count  his  visits. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  there  when  Booth  was  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  say  that  you  saw  Booth  there  almost  every  day  ? 

A.  Every  day  when  he  was  in  the  city. 

Q.  Atzerodt  was  there  ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  times,  and  Booth  was  there 
every  day,  and  yet  you  say  you  never  saw  them  together  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  seeing  him  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  with  Booth;  I  have 
seen  him  at  other  places  with  Booth. 

Q.  I  ask  you  wJiat  you  said  on  that  subject  in  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  I  said  that  I  had  never  seen  him  in  company  with  Booth  at  Mrs.  Surr/vtt's 
house,  and  I  say  so  now. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  Mrs.  Slater  being  at  that  house;  when  did  you  first  see  her 
there  ? 

A.  I  saw  her,  I  believe,  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  March  ;  I  cannot 
remember  the  precise  date  when  I  saw  her ;  I  saw  her  the  25th  of  March,  when 
she  was  in  the  buggy  with  John  Surratt  and  his  mother. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  how  she  was  dressed  at  the  time  she  first  came  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  she  was  dressed  at  the  time  I  first  saw  her;  I  know 
she  had  one  of  these  small  veils  over  her  face,  which  came  down  to  the  chin. 

Q.  When  was  that  1 

A.  That  was  some  time  in  March. 

Q.  Did  you  not  testify  before  tlic  military  commission  as  follows  : 

"  Q.  How  did  you  iearn  anything  with  reference  to  the  antecedent  of  Mrs. 
Slater  ? 

"A.  It  was  told  to  me  by  Mrs.  Surratt  herself. 

"  Q.  AVhat  did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  ? 

"A.  Mrs.  Surratt  told  me  that  she  came  to  the  house  in  company  with  this 
man  Howell;  that  she  was  a  North  Carolinian,  I  believe,  and  that  she  spoke 
French  ;  and  that  she  was  a  blockade  runner  or  bearer  of  despatches. 

"  Q.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  Mrs.  Surratt  told  you  this  ? 

"  A.  I  was  in  the  house,  in  the  dining-room. 

"  Q.  Are  you  certain,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  Mrs.  Surratt  ever  told  you  Mrs. 
Slater  was  a  blockade  runner  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

*'  Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  Mrs.  Slater  at  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  before  that 
time  ] 

"  A.  I,  myself,  saw  Mrs.  Slater  at  the  house  only  once.  I  learned  she  had 
been  to  the  house  twice. 

"  Q.  You  never  saw  her  but  once  ? 

"  A  I  saw  her  only  once. 

"  Q.  How  long  was  she  there  1 

"  A.  She  remained  there  one  night. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  her  yourself? 

"  A.  She  drove  up  to  the  door  in  a  buggy,  the  bell  rang,  and  there  was  a 
young  man  in  the  buggy  with  hei*.  Mrs.  Surratt  tol '  me  to  go  out  and  take 
her  trunk.  That  is  all  the  conversation  I  had  with  her.  She  had  a  mask  down  ; 
one  of  the  short  masks  ladies  wear.  They  call  them  masks,  I  believe;  they  are 
not  veils." 

Q.  Did  you  then  describe  this  as  a  mask  ? 

A.  I  did  not  call  it  a  mask. 

Q.  One  of  the  members  of  the  commission  called  it  a  mask,  and  did  not  you 
say  "it  was  what  ladies  call  a  mask?  " 


436  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  saying  so;  I  may  have  rlone  so.  What  I  intended  to 
say  now  was  that  Mrs.  Slater  did  not  wear  any  disguise.  I  imderstood  yon  to 
have  reference  to  something  to  conceal  the  face.  I  remember  I  did  use  the  word 
"  mask." 

Q.  I  will  now  proceed  with  the  examination.  Did  you  on  that  trial  testify 
as  follows  : 

"  Q.  At  the  time  you  say  she  told  you  she  was  a  blockade  runner,  did  she 
tell  yoLi  of  her  being  a  North  Carolinian,  and  speaking  French  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q,  Were  you  in  the  house  at  that  time  ? 

"  A.  I  was  in  the  house  at  that  time. 

"  Q-  Was  any  one  present  besides  yourself? 

"  A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

".Q.  What  day  was  that? 

"  A.  It  was  some  time  in  the  month  of  February." 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  Howell  was  in  tlie  house  in  the  early  part  of 
February,  1865.  I  understood  this  Mrs.  Slater  was  at  the  door,  and  went  away 
with  Mr.  Howell  in  a  buggy.     I  never  saw  her  until  the  latter  part  of  March. 

The  District  Attorney  stated  that  he  observed  the  court  was  exceedingly 
unwell ;  that  he  himself  was  quite  able  to  go  on,  but  as  the  heat  was  oppressive, 
and  this  was  Saturday,  he  would  suggest  that  the  court  now  take  recess  until 
Monday. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  had  suggested,  knowing  in  the  morning  the  health  of  the 
court,  that  the  cross-examination  of  this  witness  proceed  until  twelve  o'clock ; 
but  he  saw  that  his  honor  was  not  able  to  proceed,  and  he  was  quite  willing 
that  the  proceedings  should  stop  now. 

The  court  thereupon  took  a  recess  till  Monday  next,  at  10  a.  m. 

Monday,  July  1,  1867. 

The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock. 

By  agreement  of  counsel  the  cross-examination  of  Louis  J.  Weichmann  was 
temporarily  suspended,  in  order  to  admit  of  the  examination  of  Mr.  Charles  C. 
Dunn. 

Charles  C.  Dunn  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q,  What  was  your  occupation  and  where  were  you  employed  or  engaged  in 
December,  1864? 

A.  In  this  city  as  the  agent  for  Adams's  Express  Company. 

Q.  You  have  charge  of  that  company's  business  here  ? 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  In  the  latter  part  of  December,  state  what  occurred  between  you  and  the 
prisoner  in  relation  to  his  being  employed  there. 

A.  He  made  application  to  me  for  employment. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  in  the  application  ? 

A.  As  nigh  as  I  can  remember  he  said  that  he  had  been  out  of  employment 
for  some  time,  and  was  exceedingly  anxious  to  have  a  position.  After  asking 
him  a  question  or  two  about  his  antecedents  and  his  references,  the  answers  be- 
ing satisfactory  and  the  references  equally  so,  his  answers  being  prompt  and 
businesslike,  I  assigned  him  to  a  position  in  my  freight  department. 

Q.  What  day  did  he  take  his  place  ? 

.A.  I  believe  upon  the  30th  of  December,  1864. 

Q.  When  did  you  pay  your  employes  ? 

A.  All  employes  upon  monthly  salaries  draw  their  pay  upon  the  last  day  of 
the  month. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H     SURRATT.  437 

Q.  Then  for  how  many  clays  clid  you  pay  him  ? 

A.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  he  was  paid  for  the  two  days'  services;  though 
I  do  not  know,  for  I  was  not  cashier. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  the  facts  1 

A.  I  have  no  absolute  knowledge,  but  it  was  customary  for  the  office  to  pay  on 
the  last  day  of  the  month. 

Mr.  Bradley.  But  you  did  not  make  the  payment? 

A.  No,  sir ;  the  cashier  made  the  payments. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  The  cashier  has  been  upon  the  stand,  and  testified  to  it. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  occuiTcd  on  or  about  the  13th  of  January  following? 

A.  I  did  not  fix  the  dale ;  I  only  say  that  he  was  in  our  service  in  that  office 
close  in  the  neighborhood  of  two  weeks.  It  won't  vary  more  than  a  day  or  two  of 
that,  one  way  or  the  other. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  occurred  at  the  end  of  two  weeks. 

A.  He  came  into  my  office,  and  applied  to  me  for  a  leave  of  absence. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  I  expressed  my  astonishment  that  he  should  apply  so  soon  after  taking  his 
position,  and  lie  gave  as  a  reason  that  his  mother  was  going  down  to  Prince 
George's,  and  he  wanted  to  accompany  her  as  her  protector. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  as  to  his  going  with  his  mother  to  Prince  George's,  as 
her  protector  1 

A.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not  consent  to  give  him  the  leave  of  absence  he 
wanted  ;  that  he  had  been  there  but  a  short  time. 

Q.  What  then  occurred  1 

A.  He  left  the  office,  and  went  back  to  his  work.  The  next  morning  a  lady 
called  in  the  office.  She  introduced  herself  as  Mrs.  Surratt,  the  mother  of  the 
young  man  of  that  nf^me  in  my  employ. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  ? 

A.  She  asked  that  he  might  have  a  leave  of  absence  to  accompany  her  to 
Prince  George's  county,  where  she  had  urgent  business. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  to  that  ? 

A.  That  I  had  no  reason  to  change  my  mind ;  I  had  answered  her  son's  appli- 
cation the  day  before,  and  I  could  not  give  my  consent.  She  still  urged  her  ap- 
plication, and  I  told  her  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  yield ;  that  her  son  could 
go  without  my  consent,  if  she  and  he  so  determined ;  but  if  he  did,  he  could  not 
return  to  that  office. 

Q.  What  then  occurred  1 

A.  She  bade  me  good  morning,  and  left  the  office. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  ? 

A.  He  left  the  office  the  same  day. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  come  back  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  come  back  for  his  money  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Louis  J.  Weichmann — Cross-examination  resumed. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  On  Saturday  we  were  speaking  about  your  acquaintance  with  Atzerodt- 
Do  you  recollect  having  introduced  him  to  anybody  about  that  time  as  one  of 
your  personal  friends  ? 

Witness.  About  what  time  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  While  he  was  living  at  Mrs.  Surratt's,  and  while  you  were 
living  there. 

A.  On  the  2d  of  April  I  rode  down  to  St.  Aloysius  church ;  I  then  introduced 


438  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SITRRATT. 

him  to  Mr.  Bropliy  ;  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  said  "  my  particular  friend 
or  not. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  "  particular  friend  of  mine,"  or  words  to  that  effect  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  so. 

Q.  That  was  on  the  2d  of  April  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  yon  fix  that  date  ? 

A.  As  being  after  the  1st  of  April,  and  as  being  before  the  3d  of  April. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  usually  the  case  with  the  "2d  of  April." 

Q.  How  do  you  fix  the  intit)duction  ? 

A.  I  fix  that  date  by  another  circumstance.  On  the  evening  of  the  1st  of 
April  Mr.  Jenkins  returned  from  the  country  with  Mrs.  Surratt;  that  evening 
General  Augur's  office,  at  the  corner  of  Seventeenth  and  I  streets,  was  burned 
down,  and  Mr.  Jenkins  and  I  went  to  see  the  fire.  The  next  day  Mr.  Jenkins 
wanted  a  horse,  or  one  of  John's  horses,  with  which  to  return  to  the  country.  I 
fix  that  date  as  the  2d  of  April,  because  he  wanted  the  horse  the  very  same  day 
that  I  introduced  Atzerodt  to  Brophy. 

Q.  That  was  the  last  time  you  saw  him? 

A.  That  was  the  last  time  I  saw  him  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  after  that  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  of  April,  at  Howard's  stable. 

Q.  When  you  met  him  at  Howard's  stable,  on  that  day,  state  what  passed 
there. 

A.  He  wanted  to  procure  a  horse.  I  asked  him  what  he  Avanted  with  one. 
He  said  he  wanted  to  send  Payne  off,  and  also  said  that  he  was  going  to  have  a 
ride  into  the  country. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  to  that  point  by  the  military  commission  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  state  then  that  he  told  you  he  wanted  to  get  a  horse  to  send 
Payne  off  on  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     You  will  find  it  there  in  the  cross-examination, 

Q.  Did  you  so  state  in  the  examination  in  chief? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did.     But  I  said  so  in  the  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Let  me  read  from  the  report  of  your  evidence  on  that  trial : 
"  I  remember  that  I  asked  Atzerodt  where  he  was  going,  and  he  said  that  he 
was  going  to  ride  in  the  country.  He  said  he  was  going  to  get  a  horse  and 
send  for  Payne." 

Witness.  I  did  not  use  the  word  "for,"  but  "off." 

Q.  Then  this  is  not  correctly  reported  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  There  are  several  mistakes  in  that  book.  The  book  states  that 
I  met  "Mr.  Boyd."  I  did  not  say  I  met  Mr.  Boyd,  but  "Mr.  Lloyd."  There 
are  several  mistakes  of  that  kind  there. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  that  is  the  case? 

A.  I  am  positive  that  I  used  the  word  "off." 

Q.  You  say  you  corrected  that  in  your  cross-examination.     Do  you  refer  to 
your  first  examination,  or  when  you  were  recalled. 

A.  I  stated  that  in  the  cross-examination.  I  believe  it  was  in  my  first  ex- 
amination. 

Q.  What  I  have  just  read  to  you  was  in  your  cross-examination  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  was,  as  near  as  I  can  remember — after  I  was  cross-examined 
by  Mr.  Johnson  on  that  point. 

Q.  You  now  say  that  was  a  mistake.  You  did  not  say  that  he  was  going 
to  send  "  for"  Payne  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  always  had  the  word  "off"  in  my  mind.  It  was  a  mistake. 
There  are  several  mistakes  of  that  kind  in  the  book. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  439 

Q.  Do  you  remember  meeting  Atzerodt  at  Mrs.  Surratt's,  and  in  your  room, 
on  one  occasion? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     He  was  there  several  times  with  John  Surratt. 

Q.  Was  he  there  on  one  occasion  when  there  was  some  drinking  going  on  ? 

A.  That  was  iu  the  early  part  of  February.  lS6o,  when  Howell  was  here. 
There  was  a  bottle  of  whiskey  in  the  room,  and  everybody  took  a  drink  all 
round.     I  took  a  drink  along  with  the  others. 

Q.  On  that  occasion  did  Mr.  Howell  give  you  some  money  to  go  and  purchase 
more  whiskey  with  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember.  • 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  of  his  giving  you  a  dollar  and  a  half  to  go  out  and 
get  some  whiskey  with  1 

A.  No,  sir.  I  remember  that  I  went  out  and  bought  a  bottle  of  whiskey,  but 
I  do  not  remember  that  Howell  gave  me  the  money  to  buy  the  whiskey  with. 
I  remember  distinctly  about  buying  the  whiskey.  He  may  possibly  have  given 
me  the  money,  but  I  do  not  remember  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  taking  the  bottle  under  your  military  cape  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  It  was  winter  time,  and  I  put  it  under  my  cloak.  I  have 
done  that  more  than  once. 

Q    While  Atzerodt  was  there  1 

A.  No,  sir.     I  did  it  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  How  long  was  Atzerodt  there  at  that  time? 

A.  I  believe  Atzerodt  stopped  in  the  house  all  night  on  that  occasion. 

Q.  No  longer  than  that  1 

A.  No,  sir.  He  stopped  in  the  house  only  one  night  to  my  positive  recol- 
lection. 

Q.  In  your  examination  here  you  have  spoken  of  going  to  the  post  office  with 
Surratt  when  he  obtained  a  letter  fi  om  the  post  office  addressed  to  James  Sturdy. 
Can  you  state  when  that  was  ? 

A.  That  was  about  or  before  the  20th  of  March,  as  I  stated  on  Saturday. 

Q.  That  is  your  best  recollection  now,  is  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  being  examined  in  regard  to  that  subject  before  the 
military  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  date  that  you  fixed  there  ? 

A.  I  remember  that  I  said  that  Payne  came  to  the  house  a  short  time  after 
the  4th  of  March.  It  was  my  impression  at  the  time  I  testified  in  1865  that 
Payne  did  come  a  very  short  time  after  the  4th  of  March ;  and  then  I  fixed 
this  circumstance  of  receiving  this  letter  addressed  to  James  Sturdy  about 
two  weeks  after  that.  But  by  looking  at  the  farther  cross-examination  you  will 
find  in  that  book  the  date  of  Payne's  coming  to  the  house,  on  the  evening  of  the 
13th  of  March,  fixed  from  other  circumstances  which  came  to  my  mind. 

Q.  I  ask  how  you  fix  the  date  when  you  called  with  Surratt  for  that  letter  ? 

A.  I  have  just  stated,  as  being  before  the  time  Surratt  left  for  Richmond  on 
the  25th  of  March. 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  you  fixed  it  before  the  commission  ? 

A.  Not  as  to  the  last  point,  as  to  its  being  received  before  the  25th  of  March. 
I  may  have  said  to  the  commission  before  the  27th  of  March.  I  do  not  now 
remember,  the  examination  was  so  lengthy. 

Q.  What  was  the  date  at  which  you  saw  John  Sun-att  fencing  with  bowie 
knives  ? 

A.  On  the  15th. 

Q.  State  whether  this  report  of  your  testimony  before  the  commission  is  cor- 
rect : 

"  A.  On  SuiTatt  returning  home  I  asked  him  where  he  had  left  his  friend 


440  TRIIL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Payne.  He  said  Payne  had  gone  to  Baltimore.  I  asked  him  where  John 
Wilkes  Booth  had  gone.  He  said  Booth  had  gone  to  New  York.  This  is  all 
that  I  remember  of  that  circumstance  ;  and  some  two  weeks  after,  Surratt,  when 
passing  the  post  office,  went  to  the  post  office  and  inquired  for  a  letter  that  was 
sent  to  him  under  the  name  of  James  Sturdy  ;  and  I  asked  him  why  a  letter 
was  sent  to  him  under  a  false  name,  and  he  said  he  had  particular  reasons  for  it. 

"  Q.  What  day  was  that  1 

"  A.  It  must  have  been  about  two  weeks  after  that  affair." 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  "  affair"  refers  to  the  horseback  ride. 

Witness.  Yes,  sir.  • 

Mr.  Bradley.  Which  occurred  when? 

A.  On  the  16th  of  March. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  it  was  about  two  weeks  after  that  affair  ? 

A.  You  remember  that  I  testified  on  my  first  examination  that  Payne  came 
to  the  house  a  short  time  after  the  4th  of  March,  and  I  testified  then  that  it  was 
two  weeks,  a  short  time  after  the  4th  of  March.  I  say  now  I  made  a  mistake 
as  to  the  date. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  will  read  on :  "Yes,  sir;  it  must  have  been  before  the  20th 
of  March." 

Witness.  Do  I  not  say  about  the  20th  of  March  ? 

Ml*.  Bradley.  No,  sir;  "before." 

Witness.  It  was  about  two  weeks.  I  gave  you  the  wrong  reference  as  to 
the  fencing  with  knives — two  weeks. 

Q.  Now  how  do  you  reconcile  the  change  in  that  date  ? 

A.  I  have  just  stated.  I  have  stated  that  it  seemed  to  me  when  I  first  tes- 
tified that  Payne's  visit  was  a  few  days  after  the  4th  of  March,  about  the  6th 
or  7th,  and  then  I  said  it  was  two  weeks  after  that.  The  reason  I  thought  it 
was  so  soon  after  the  4th  of  March  was  because  Payne,  when  he  came  there, 
said  that  he  was  sorry  he  had  not  got  here  on  the  4th ;  that  it  was  his  intention 
to  have  been  here  at  that  time. 

Q.  On  your  examination,  at  what  time  did  you  fix  that  ride  when  John  came 
in,  and  when  there  was  all  this  excitement  that  you  have  described  ? 

A.  I  fixed  the  16th  of  March. 

Q.  At  that  time  1 

A.  Not  the  second  time  when  I  was  recalled,  but  the  last  time,  in  reply  to  a 
question  of  Mr.  Cox ;  you  will  find  it  in  the  second  volume  of  that  book. 

Q.  During  that  examination,  then,  you  fixed  that  as  the  1  6th  of  March,  and 
at  the  same  time  say  that  this  Sturdy  letter  must  have  been  about  two  weeks 
after  that  affair,  and  that  it  must  have  been  before  the  20lh  of  March.  How 
do  you  reconcile  that  ? 

A.  I  have  just  told  you  how  I  reconcile  it. 

Q.  That  is  all  the  answer  you  have  to  make  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  Atzerodt  was  at  the  house  when  or  while  Howell 
was  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  date  do  you  fix  that  at  ? 

A.  That  was  in  the  early  part  of  February,  1865.  Howell  was  there  only 
once. 

Q.  Who  was  Howell  ? 

A.  A  blockade  runner. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  ? 

A.  John  Surratt  told  me  so. 

Q.  Were  you  intimate  with  him  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  1  treated  him  kindly. 

Q.  Is  that  all  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT  441 

A,  I  did  not  consider  that  I  was  intimate.  I  treated  everybody  kindly  tliat 
Snrratt  introduced  me  to. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  the  condition,  &c.,  of  the 
federal  forces  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  because  I  was  not  posted  on  that  myself  I  had  some  conversa- 
tion with  him  with  reference  to  prisoners  of  war.  The  exchange  was  going  on 
at  that  time,  and  I  remember  that  I  used  to  sit  there  nearly  every  afternoon 
and  read  from  the  Evening  Star  the  number  of  prisoners  that  were  exchanged. 
I  believe,  on  one  occasion,  the  number  of  prisoners  on  hand  at  the  various  camps, 
or  the  total  number  of  prisoners,  Avas  stated. 
Q.  You  knew  he  was  a  blockade  runner  ? 
A.  Yes,  six*. 

Q.  And  you  had  a  conversation  with  him  with  regard  to  the  number  of  pris- 
oners and  so  on.  Did  he  not  teach  you  a  secret  cipher  used  by  the  signal  corps 
of  the  confederate  forces  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  He  taught  me  a  cipher.  I  was  not  aware  that  it  was  used  by 
the  secret  service  of  the  South.  Howell  himself  says  he  learned  it  in  a  magician's 
book. 

Q.  Did  he  teach  you  how  to  read  this  cipher  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  made  a  dozen  copies  of  it  since. 

Q.  Did  he  so  teach  it  to  you  that  you  could  use  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q    Have  you  ever  used  it? 

A.  Before  the  assassination  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  only  use  I  ever  made  of  it 

was  to  write  the  first  two  sentences  of  Longfellow's  poem  on 

Mr.  Bradlev.  Then  you  have  used  it?     That  is  the  question  I  put  to  you. 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  but  that  is  the  only  way  in  which  I  used  it.     I  cannot  say  tuat 
I  was  very  familiar  with  it. 

Q  Do  you  know  a  gentleman  in  this  city,  residing  here  at  that  time,  named 
i\Ir.  Rocoford  ? 

Witness.  What  was  he — a  clergyman? 
Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir. 
Witness.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  him  that  yon  were  employed  to  furnish  information  ? 
A.  No,  sir.     I  never  had  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Ilocoford  except  at  his 
feet  in  the  tribunal  of  penance. 
Q.  That  is  in  the  confession  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  had  any  conversation  with  him  except  in  the  confession  ? 
A.  No,  sir,  except  on  one  occasion,  and  that  was  after  I  was    released  from 
Carroll  prison,  meeting  him  on  the  steps  outside  St.  Aloysius  church.     I  ask(_J 
him  a  single  question,  whether  he  would  hear  my  confession  that  evening.     He 
replied  "  not  that  evening."    That  is  the  only  conversation  I  ever  had  with  him. 
Q    About  that  your  memory  is  quite  distinct  ? 
A.  I  remember  that  very  distinctly. 

Q.  I  think  in  your  examination  in  chief  you  stated  that  you  were  not  arrested 
on  the  morning  after  the  assassination  of  the  President ;   am  I  correct  ? 

A.  On  the  morning  after  the  assassination  of  the  President  I   met  Mr.  Hoi 

ban  on  the  corner  of 

Q.  Can  you  answer  that  question  ? 
A.  1  never  considered  myself  arrested. 
Q.  Were  you  put  in  charge  of  anybody  1 
A.  I  never  considered  myself  so. 
Q,  You  say  you  were  not  put  in  charge  of  anybody? 
A.  Not  that  morning. 

(^.  Were  you  not  put  in  charge  of  a  detective  ? 
29 


442  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  The  following^  Sunday  morning  Mr.  McDevitt  said,  "You  will  go  with  me; 
you  are  under  my  charge." 

Q.  Were  you  not  on  Saturday  put  under  the  charge  of  a  police  officer  of  this 
city? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  You  were  examined  on  that  point  at  the  conspiracy  trials.  In  the  report 
of  your  evidence  I  find  the  following : 

"  Q.  Were  you  arrested*? 

"  A.  I  surrendered  myself  on  Saturday  morning  at  eight  o'clock  to  Superin- 
tendent Kichards,  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  force.  I  stated  to  him  "what  I  knew 
of  Payne,  Atzerodt,  and  Herold  visiting  the  house.  I  stated  also  what  I  knew 
of  John  Surratt ;  that  I  saw  these  men  in  private  conversation. 

"  Q.  What  was  your  object  in  being  so  swift  to  give  all  this  information  ? 

"A.  My  object  was  to  assist  the  government. 

''Q.  Were  any  threats  ever  made  to  you  by  any  officer  of  the  government  in 
case  you  did  not  divulge  1 

"  A.  No,  sir ;  no  threats  at  all. 

"  Q.  Any  inducements  ? 

"  A.  No,  sir ;  no  inducements  at  all.  I  read  in  the  papers  that  morning  the 
description  of  the  assassin  of  Secretary  Seward.  He  was  described  as  a  man 
who  wore  a  long  gray  coat.  I  had  seen  Atzerodt  wear  a  long  gray  coat.  I 
went  to  a  stable  on  G  street  and  told  the  man  there  I  thought  it  was  Atzerodt. 
We  went  down  towards  Tenth  street,  and  met  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Hol- 
ahan,  and  he  also  communicated  his  suspicions  to  me.  The  gentleman  and  I 
returned  to  breakfast,  and  took  breakfast ;  but,  at  half-past  eight  o'clock  we  gave 
ourselves  up  to  Superintendent  Richards,  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  force.  I  told 
officer  McDevitt  about  this  man  Payne,  and  where  he  had  been  stopping.  I  also 
told  him  of  Atzerodt,  and  I  also  told  of  Herold.  Officer  McDevitt  put  me  in 
his  charge  and  said,  '  You  will  go  with  me.'  We  then  went  to  General  Rucker's 
office,  and  General  Rucker" 

Witness.  1  wish  to  correct  that.  It  was  not  to  Sixperintendent  Richards,  but 
to  the  men  under  him.     I  made  that  mistake  several  times. 

Mr.  Bradlev,  continuing  the  reading  : 

"  I  told  officer  McDevitt  about  this  man  Pa^me,  and  where  he  had  been  stop- 
ping. I  also  told  him  of  Atzerodt,  and  I  also  told  of  Herold.  Officer  Mc- 
Devitt put  me  in  his  charge  and  said,  '  You  will  go  with  me.' " 

WiT.N'ESS.  I  did  not  consider  that  an  arrest.  I  considered  it  more  as  a  protec- 
tion. 

Q.  Were  you  released  from  this  arrest  until  after  you  had  visited  Montreal  i 

A.  I  was  with  those  gentlemen  all  the  time. 

Q.  You  stated  on  your  examination  in  chief  that  you  did  not  go  back  to  Mrs. 
Surratt's.  Was  not  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  go  back,  that  you  were 
under  arrest,  and  in  the  custody  of  these  officers  1 

A.  They  did  not  want  me  to  go  back.  I  could  have  run  way  when  I  was  in 
Canada  just  as  easy  as  that  (snapping  his  fingers)  if  I  had  desired  to. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  ask  you,  and  desire  you  to  state  "yes,"  or  "no,"  whether 
when  you  stated  tliat  you  did  not  go  back  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  and  put  your  clothes 
in  wash,  it  was  not  because  you  Avere  under  arrest  all  tliat  time '( 

A.  I  never  considered  myself  under  arrest.  I  considered  myself  as  much  of 
a  detective  as  McDevitt  was  on  that  occasion.  In  the  pass  1  received  from 
the  War  Department  at  that  time  I  was  called  "special  officer,  Louis  J.  Weicli- 
mann." 

Mr.  Bradlev.  Where  is  that  paper?  I  would  like  to  see  it  before  you  speak 
of  its  contents. 

Mr.  PiERREPoXT.  Here  it  is. 


TRIAL    OF    JOIIX    11.    SURRATT.  443 

The  paper  was  tlien  read  as  follows  : 

Headquarters  Departiment  of  Wasiii.xgton, 

Office  of  Provost  Marshal  General, 

Washington,  D.  C,  Ajn-il  16,  1865. 

[Special  Orders  No.  68.— Extract.  ] 

Special    officers    James    A.   McDevitti    George    Hollahan,   and    Lewis   J. 
Wfichmann  are  hereby  ordered  to  proceed  to  New  York  city  on  important  gov 
ernmeut  business,  and  after  executing  their  private  orders,  to  return  to  this  city 
and  report  at  these  headquarters.     The  quartermaster's  department  will  furnish 
the  necessary  transportation. 

By  command  of  Major  General  Augur  : 

T.  INGRAHAM, 
Colonel  and  Pro.  Mar.  General,  defences  north  of  the  Potomac. 

Official :  G.  B.  RUSSELL, 

Captain  and  Asst.  Pro.  Mar   General  defences  north  of  the  Potomac 

[Indorsement.] 

Office  Pro.  Mar.  General, 
Defences  North  of  the  Potomac. 
Washington,  D.  C,  April  16,  1865. 

Respectfully  referred  to  L.  J,  "Weichmanu,  for  his  information. 

G.  B.  RUSSELL, 
Captain  and  Asst.  Pro.  Mar.  General. 

Q.  "Was  that  anything  other  than  an  order  to  furnish  transportation  to  M'e- 
Devitt  and  tlie  two  men  with  him  ? 

A.   Why,  I  am  called  "special  officer"  in  it. 

Mr.  Bradlev.     I  know  that.     I  ask  you  whether  you  were  out  of  the  sight 
of  some  one  of  the  police  officers  of  this  place  at  any  time  after  the  morning  of' 
the  15th  of  April  until  you  returned  from  Canada  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  When  ? 

A.  I  was  out  of  sight  of  the  detective  for  a  half  day.  I  went  to  see  a  clergy- 
man of  my  own  faith  there  for  the  purpose  of  stating  to  him  my  position.  I 
stated  to  him  that  the  government  would  probably  make  me  a  witness  on  this 
trial  ;  and  that  no  matter  what  might  come,  I  was  determined  to  go  back  and 
do  my  duty  to  the  government. 

Q.  Have  you  not  said  in  substance,  if  not  in  words,  that  you  would  not  have 
come  back  from  Montreal  if  you  had  not  been  forced  to  come  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  A  des])atch  was  sent  to  me  by  Secretary  Stanton,  and  I  came 
back  just  as  voluntarily  as  I  could.  There  was  only  one  regret  that  I  had  in 
coming  back. 

Q.  On  your  examination  here,  if  I  recollect  aright,  you  stated  that  on  the 
14th  of  April,  when  yon  av{  re  about  starting  after  a  buggy  to  take  !Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt  to  Surrattsville,  in  passing  out  of  the  door  you  saw  Mr.  Booth  in  conversa- 
tion with  her  in  the  parlor  ? 

A.  I  wish  to  have  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  first  met  Mr.  Booth  as  I 
was  passing  out  of  the  door,  at  which  time  I  shook  hands  with  him.  He  said  to 
me,  "  How  are  you,  ^Ir.  Weichmann  1"     That  is  all  that  passed. 

Q.  At  Avhat  time  was  that  ? 

A.  Between  twenty-five  minutes  after  two  and  twenty-five  minutes  before 
three. 

Q.  You  went  after  the  buggy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  When  I  went  into  the  house  and  went  up  to  my  room,  as  I 
was  going  past  the  parlor  I  saw  Booth  inside.     He  was  standing  there  renting 


444  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

his  arm  on  tlie  mantel-piece  and  engaged  in  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt, 
who  was  standing  with  her  back  toward  him. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  absent  after  that  buggy  ? 

A.  It  does  not  take  more  than  three  or  four  minutes  to  harness  up  a  horse 
and  buggy.     I  suppose  I  was  gone  not  more  than  seven  or  eight  minutes. 

Q.  It  would  take  more  than  seven  or  eight  minutes  to  walk  from  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt's  round  to  HoAvard's  stable  and  get  the  buggy  fixed  up  and  then  drive  back 
again,  wouldn't  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  Howard's  stable  was  only  a  half  square  from  Mrs.  Surratt's. 
All  you  had  to  do  was  to  turn  up  a  little  alley  and  you  could  reach  there  in 
thirty  seconds. 

Q.  Did  you  go  through  the  alley  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Going  along  H  street  towards  Seventh  there  is  a  little  alley,  and 
I  turned  off  down  that  alley.     I  did  not  go  around  on  Seventh  street. 

Q.  You  went  around  by  the  soap  chandler's  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any  soap  chandler  there  or  not.  After  I 
went  to  the  stable  to  get  the  buggy  I  went  and  dropped  my  letter  in  the  post 
office.  When  I  got  back  the  buggy  was  hitched  up ;  I  then  came  back  right 
away. 

Q.  Then  you  did  go  to  the  post  office  while  they  were  hitching  up  the  buggy? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  could  go  to  Howard's  stable,  order  a  buggy, 
go  to  the  post  office  and  deposit  a  letter,  return  to  the  stable,  get  the  buggy, 
and  drive  back  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  in  six  or  seven  minutes? 

A.  I  could  do  the  Avhole  thing  in  ten  minutes. 

Q,  I  misunderstood  you  in  your  examination  in  chief.  I  understood  you  to 
say  then  that  you  drove  around  to  the  post  office  in  the  buggy. 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not  drive  around  to  the  post  office  in  the  buggy. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  I  misunderstood  you  then. 

Q.  On  your  examination  before  the  military  commission,  did  you  state  those 
incidents  in  that  order  of  succession — that  when  you  went  out  you  shook  hands 
with  Booth,  and  he  went  into  the  parlor  ;  and  that  going  up  to  your  room  after  this 
you  saw  him  and  Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  position  you  have  described  f 

A.  No,  sir.  I  remember  these  circumstances  more  clearly  now  than  I  did  at 
that  time.  I  had  then  been  in  prison  for  some  time,  and  was  laboring  under  a 
great  deal  of  excitement,  and  under  a  great  deal  of  nervousness,  which  would 
not  have  been  the  case  had  I  bten  in  my  ordinary  frame  of  mind. 

Q.  Then  your  memory  is  much  more  distinct  now,  two  years  after  the  event, 
than  it  was  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  in  what  order  of  succession  you  stated  the  facts  at  that 
trial f 

A.  I  believe  I  stated  that  I  went  around  and  hired  the  buggy.  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  was  before  I  returned  with  the  buggy  or  afterwards  that  I  saw 
Booth.     I  do  not  remember  how  I  stated  it  then. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  that  you  did  not  state  it  in  the  way  you  state  it  now? 

A.  I  have  read  the  book,  and  I  have  seen  that  I  did  not  state  it  in  that  way. 
Q.  When  did  you  read  the  book  ? 

A.  I  have  read  it  within  the  last  two  years,  and  within  the  last  four  months. 
Q.  Have  you  read  it  withiu  the  last  two  days  ? 
A.  I  read  it  yesterday. 

,  Q.  And  although  you  read  it  yesterday,  you  cannot  recollect  how  you  stated 
it  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  I  did  not  notice  that  point  particularly. 

Mr.  Bradley.  So  I  supposed.     Let  me  recall  it  to  your  mind. 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  445 

Q.  Did  jon  state  anything  on  tliat  trial  about  your  having  seen  Mr.  Booth 
when  you  were  going  after  the  buggy  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.  I  stated  that  I  saw  Booth  in  the  parlor  with  Mrs, 
Surratt ;  whether  it  w.is  before  or  after  I  reiturued  with  the  buggy  I  do  not  now 
remember. 

Q.  Didn't  you  state  that  you  went  and  got  the  buggy,  and  when  you  came 
baclc  and  went  to  your  room,  in  coming  down  you  saw  Mr.  Booth  in  the  parlor 
with  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  it  could  not  have  been  over  five  minutes  that  they  were 
together. 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Braplkv.  Suppose  I  turn  to  the  report  of  your  testimony  on  that  point 
and  get  you  to  tell  me  whether  it  is  correct. 

While  Mr.  Bradley  was  looking  for  this  portion  of  the  witness's  testimony 
the  witness  said :  I  think  you  will  also  find  in  that  book  that  I  said  in  the 
cross-examination  that  when  Payne  made  his  first  visit  to  the  house  he  asked 
to  see  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  think  I  will  find  it  stated  three  different  ways.  In  regard  to 
that  I  will  say  that  I  find  this  stated  here,  ♦'  Payne  asked  you  to  introduce  him 
to  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  that  you  did  introduce  him." 

WiTiXESs.  I  remember  you  read  that,  but  I  remember  the  cross-examination, 
now,  too. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Since  yesterday  you  have  examined  it  1 

Witness.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  have  found  what  I  was  looking  for.  I  will  now  read  it  to 
you: 

"  Q.  Will  you  state  whether  on  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  of  April,  the  day 
of  the  assassination,  Mr.  Booth  did  not  call  and  have  a  private  iutervie-w  with 
Mrs   Surratt,  at  her  house  ? 

"  A.  I  will  state  that  about  half  past  two  o'clock,  when  I  was  going  to  the 
door,  I  saw  iMr.  Booth.  He  was  in  the  parlor,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  was  speaking 
with  him. 

"  Q.  Were  they  alone  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir.     They  were  alone  in  the  parlor. 

"  Q.  How  long  was  it  after  that  before  you  drove  to  the  country  with  Mrs. 
Surratt  ? 

"  A.  Ho.  did  not  remain  in  the  parlor  more  than  three  or  four  minutes. 

"  Q.  And  was  it  immediately  after  that  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  set  out  for  the 
country  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir." 

Q.  Is  that  the  way  you  stated  it  ? 

A.  I  stated  it  in  that  way.  The  time  I  saw  Booth  in  the  parlor  was  when 
I  came  down  from  my  room  On  the  first  occasion  I  saw  him  while  I  was 
passing  out ;  and  I  then  shook  hands  with  him. 

Q.  You  say  that  on  that  day,  as  you  were  ^oing  out  to  Surrattsville,  with 
Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  buggy,  you  met  John  M.  Lloyd  just  beyond  the  little  village 
of  Uniontown,  and  had  a  convei'sation  ? 

A.  Not  on  that  day. 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  the  Tuesday  previous  ;  you  are  right. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  interrogated  as  to  that  before  the 
commission. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  state  in  regard  to  that  conversation  ;  as  to  the  tone  of  voice? 

A.  1  said  it  appeared  to  me  as  if  it  were  in  a  whisper;  that  Mrs.  Surratt 
leaned  sideways  out  of  the  buggy  and  talked  to  Mr.  Lloyd,  while  I  leaned 
back  and  sat  upright. 

Q.  That  you  think  is  the  statement  ? 


446  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Now,  let  me  read  you  tlie  report  of  your  testimony  on  that 
point,  and  you  can  tell  me  whether  it  is  a  correct  report  or  not : 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  any  of  the  conversation  that  passed  at  the  time  hetween 
him  and  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  I  leaned  back  in  my  buggy,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  leaned  sideways 
in  the  buggy  and  whispered,  as  it  were,  in  Mr.  Lloyd's  ear." 

Witness.  I  stated  that. 

Q.  Is  that  the  same  statement  you  have  made  here? 

A.  Almost  the  same.     I  have  stated  that  I  did  not  hear  that  conversation. 

Q.  Haven't  you  stated  here  that  it  was  in  such  a  low  tone  that  although  you 
could  hear  the  voices,  you  could  not  distinguish  the  words  ? 

A.  Neither  could  I  hear  their  voices. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  a  whisper  or  a  tone  of  voice  ? 

Witness.  Is  not  a  whisper  a  tone  of  voice  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir;  not  in  the  ordinary,  common  acceptation.  We  make 
a  distinction. 

Witness.  True,  it  is  not  so  in  the  ordinary  acceptation ;  but  a  whisper  is 
nevertheless  a  tone  of  voice  produced  by  the  vocal  organs. 

Q.  You  desire  to  have  the  jury  understand,  then,  that  by  *'  whisper"  and 
"low  tone  of  voice,"  you  mean  the  same  thing] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  were  not  arrested.  Didn't  you  state  on  the  trial,  before  the 
military  commission,  that  you  surrendered  yourself  to  the  government  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  surrendered  myself  to  Messrs.  McDevitt  and  Clarvoe. 

Q.  Did  you  not,  on  that  trial,  state  that  you  were  arrested  by  the  govern- 
ment 1- 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Your  language  is,  I  believe,  "  arrested  by  Mr  Stanton." 

A.  I  say  that  now.  After  I  got  back  from  Canada  I  was  at  large  for  a  day. 
Then  I  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Stanton.  He  thought  it  would  be  safer 
for  me 

Q.  Did  jon  surrender  yourself  then  to  the  government  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  told  Mr.  Stanton  I  was  at  the  disposal  of  the  government  in 
tliis  thing,  and  that  he  could  do  with  me  what  he  pleased. 

Q.  Then  Mr.  Stanton  did  not  have  you  arrested  1 

A.  Mr.  Stanton  first  said  to  me :  "  Mr.  Weichmann,  for  your  safety  in  this 
thing,  you  will  have  to  go  to  Carroll  prison."  Says  I,  "Mr.  Stanton,  I  am  at 
the  disposal  of  the  government.  You  can  do  with  me  what  you  please.  I 
want  this  thing  investigated."     Mr.  Stanton  knows  this  is  what  I  said. 

Q.  On  the  trial  before  that  commission,  did  you  state,  "  when  I  surrendered 
myself  to  the  government  I  surrendered  myself  because  I  thought  it  was  my 
duty"? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  my  duty. 

Q.  Did  you  state  that  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Then  when  you  say  you  surrendered  yourself,  you  mean  that  you  only 
went  there  and  told  them  what  you  knew  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  mean  by  "  surrendering,"  to  put  yourself  in  the  custody  of  the 
government  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  to  let  the  government  do  with  me  what  they  pleased  in  the 
matter.     I  was  not  afraid  of  any  investigation,  but  asked  for  it. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  you  were  after  that  in  custody  or  not  ? 

A.  I  was  in  custody  for  thirty  days. 

Q.  The  first  time  you  reported  yourself  to  Mr.  Richards  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  447 

A.  Not  to  "Sh.  Richards,  Tint  at  ^Ir.  Ricliard-s's  office. 

Q.  You  think  you  were  not  iu  custody  at  all  ;  is  that  it? 

A.   I  thought  I  was  uot,  because  I  was  a  special  officer. 

Q.  You  were  not  a  special  officer  until  the  16th,  I  suppose? 

A.  Not  until  the  16th. 

Q.  Between  the  morning  of  the  1 5th  and  the  ti  ne  tliat  the  order  was  given 
by  xVfr.  Stanton,  were  you  in  custody  ? 

A.  I  never  considered  myself  so.  I  rode  round  on  horseback  witli  Messrs. 
McDevitt  and  Clarvoe,  and  was  with  them  all  the  time  . 

Q.  Did  you  ride  with  any  one  else  besides  an  officer  ? 

A.  I  rode  with  Mr.  Holahan  ;  he  was  just  as  much  in  custody  as  T  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ride  with  any  one  when  you  had  not  a  police  officer  with  you  ? 

A.  From  the  time  I  gave  myself  up  on  the  morning  of  the  15th  to  the  time 
I  went  to  Canada  I  was  in  charge  of  a  police  officer  all  the  time ;  but  I  never 
considered  myself  under  arrest. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  I  don't  ask  what  you  considered;  I  ask  you  if  you  were 
under  the  charge  of  a  police  officer  all  the  time  ? 

A.  1  was. 

Q.  You  say  that  on  the  morning  of  the  14'h  of  April,  at  Mrs.  Surratt's 
instance,  you  procured  a  buggy  ? 

A.  Not  on  the  morning  of  the  14th. 

Q.  At  noon  of  that  day  I 

A.  Afternoon. 

Q.  Had  you  had  dinner  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  had  had  lunch  between  2  and  3  o'clock. 

Q.  At  her  instance — I  won't  be  particular  as  to  the  time — you  procured  a 
horse  and  buggy  to  drive  her  to  Surratsville,  and  when  she  came  down  stairs 
and  was  about  to  get  in  she  said,  "  Wait  a  moment,  until  I  go  up  stairs  and  get 
Mr.  Booth's  things;"  and  that  she  did  go,  bringing  something  down,  and  pat 
it  in  the  bottom  of  the  buggy,  and  told  you  it  was  glass  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  she  used  the  word  "glass,"  and  she  said  it  was  brittle. 

Q.  Did  you  take  it  and  fix  it  in  the  buggy  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  I  took  it  or  not.  It  was  put  in  there.  One 
side  of  the  buggy  was  wet,  and  she  was  afraid  of  it  getting  wet. 

Q.  Didn't  you  handle  it  and  fix  it  ? 

A.  1  believe  I  did  put  it  in  the  bottom  of  the  buggy. 

Q.  Have  you  told  the  jury  what  that  was  ? 

A.  I  stated  in  1865  that  it  felt  to  me  like  three  or  four  saucers  wrapped  up 
together  ;  like  a  glass  dessert  dish  ;  that  was  my  impression  at  the  time.  I  did 
not  know  what  was  in  the  package  at  all. 

Q.  You  then  stated  on  your  examination  in  chief  that  you  thought  it  vras 
some  saucers.     Wliy  did  you  not  st  ite  that  here  the  other  day  ? 

A.  I  described  the  diamet(!r  of  the  package  as  5  or  6  inches,  and  thai  it  was 
wrapped  up  in  brown  paper,  with  a  string  around  it. 

Mr.  Bradi,k.v.  1  don't  think  you  stated  anything  of  the  sort  I  understand 
you  to  say  that  you  did  uot  get  out  of  the  buggy  at  SurrattsviUe  that  day,  but 
drove  up  and  down   the   road  until    Mrs.  Suriatt  came   up  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  said  that.  I  said  that  a  part  of  the  time  I  drove  up  and 
down  the  road.  3Irs.  Surratt  got  down  about  half-past  4,  and  left  about  half- 
past  6.     I  was  out  of  the  buggy. 

Q.  In  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  told  you  that  I  wrote  a  letter  in  ]\[rs.  Surratt's  parlor,  and 
certainly  it  was  necessary  to  get  out  of  the  buggy  to  write  that  letter. 

Q.  When  you  went  out  and  got  into  the  buggy,  after  writing  that  letter,  had 
Mr.  Lloyd  returned  ? 


448  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

A.  T  cin  not  know  precisely  at  what  time  I  got  into  tbe  buggj  again,  but  I 
know  just  as  we  were  about  to  drive  off  I  saw  Mr.  Lloyd,  and  be  recognized  me. 
Q,.  Was  Mrs.  Surratt  with  you  all  tbe  time  after  you  wrote  tbat  letter  until 
you  got  into  tbe  buggy  ? 

A    I  do  not  remember  tbat  sbe  was. 
Q.  Did  sbe  go  out  witb  you  to  get  into  tbe  buggy  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  tbat  sbe  did.     My  impression  is  tbat  sbe  came  out  on 
tbe  road-side  and  I  belped  ber  in. 

Q.  You  didn't  get  into  tbe  buggy,  tben,  before  sbe  came  1 
A.  I  believe  tbat  I  was  seated  in  tbe  buggy,  but  wben  sbe  came  up   I  got 
out  and  belped  put  ber  in. 

Q.  Can  you  state  bow  long  after  you  wrote  tbat  letter  and  resumed  your  seat 
in  the  buggy  it  was  before  Mrs.  Surratt  came  to  get  in  ? 
A.   It  is  impossible  for  me  to  remember  that  now. 
Q.  Where  was  tbe  buggy  standing? 

A.  Right  in  front  of  ilr.  Lloyd's  house  on  tbe  road  ;  right  along  tbe  fence. 
I  believe  there  was  a  fencing  facing  towards  iMr.  Gwynn's  place. 

Q.  And  your  impression  is  tbat  you  sat  there  after  you  wrote  tbat  letter  until 
Mrs  Surratt  and  Mr.  Lloyd  came  out  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  Mr.  Lloyd  come  out  of  any  place  at  all ;  I  only  saw  Mr. 
Lloyd  when  he  came  by  the  buggy. 

Q.  You  were  out  in  front  of  the  house,  or  in  the  bouse,  all  tbe  while  from 
tbe  time  you  wrote  tbat  letter  1 

A.  I  cannot  say,  positively,  that  I  was  out  in  front  of  tbe  house  all  tbe  time, 
or  tbat  I  was  in  tbe  house  all  tbe  time  after  I  wrote  tbe  letter.  I  might  have 
ridden  up  and  down  the  road. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Mr.  Lloyd  come  there  in  a  buggy  ? 

A  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen  him  All  I  saw  of  Mr.  Lloyd 
was  in  front  of  our  own  buggy  when  he  recognized  me. 

Q.  As  to  when  he  came  or  bow  he  came,  you  know  nothing? 
A.  No,  sir ;   I  saw  one  buggy  driving  up  there,  but  Mr.  Gwynn  was  seated 
in  that  buggy.     I  believe  there  were  two  horses  in  it. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  a  conversation   witb  Mr.  Lloyd  on  tbe  subject  of  the 
interview  between  himself  and  Mrs.  Surratt,  at  Uniontown,  or  near  Unioutown  ? 
A.  No,   sir;    I  had   some    conversation    Avith   him  in   1865.     He  then  felt 
astonished  and  angry  on  learning  that  I  had  not  overheard  the  conversation 
between  him.self  and  Mrs.  Surratt      I  could  not  help  that,  however. 
Q.  Did  you  tell  him  you  had  sworn  to  the  whisper? 
A.  He  knew  that ;  be  had  read  it  in  the  papers,  and  I  think  I  told  him. 
Mr.  Bradley.  I  want  to  know  what  you  said  to  him.    Didn't  you  tell  Mr. 
Lloyd  on  your  examination  below  that  you  had  sworn  to  a  whisper  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember ;  I  may  have  told  him  so ;  I  believe  that  I  did. 
Q.  Do  you  remember  Avbat  his  reply  was  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  both  in  prison  at  tbat  time  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  but  in  different  rooms. 

Q.  Did  not  Mr.  Lloyd  tell  you  there,  that  if  you  had  sworn  to  a  whisper, 
you  bad  sworn  to  what  Avas  not  true  ? 

A.  I  cannot  remember  what  Mr.  Lloyd  said.  I  do  not  recall  anything  of 
tbat  kind  that  be  said.  I  am  judge  of  my  own  conscience  and  Mr.  Lloyd  is  not. 
1  know  what  I  heard,  and  he  knows  what  he  beard. 

Q.  I  wish  to  know  whether  you  have  stated,  at  any  time,  that  in  your  first 

interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War  you  told  him  where  John  Surratt  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  never  told  the  Secretary  of  War  that,  because  I  did  not  know. 

Mr.  Bradley.  1  did  not  ask  whether  you  bad  told  the  Secretary  of  War 

that.     1  want  to  know  Avhether  you   did  not  tell  Mr.  John  T.  Ford  that  you 


I 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  449 

bad  told  tlie  Secretary  of  War  where  Joliu  Surratt  was  at  the  time  of  the  as- 
sassination ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  repeat  to  him  what  passed  at  the  interview  with  the  Secretary 
of  War? 

A.  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  If  you  did,  you  say  you  did  not  tell  him  that  you  had  told  the  Secretary 
of  War  whore  John  Surratt  was  at  the  time  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind,  because  I  did  not  know  where  he 
was.  I  told  Mr.  Ford  that  I  bad  had  an  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  I  believe  I  did  state  to  him  what  passed  at  that  interview. 

Q.  Did  not  you  state  to  him  that  you  bad  told  the  Secretary  of  War  that 
Jolm  Surratt  bad  left  hereVi  considerable  time  before  the  assassination,  and  that, 
from  a  letter  which  you  had  seen,  he  must  have  been  in  Montreal  at  that  time  ? 

A  I  may  have  said  that ;  I  may  have  said  that  I  had  not  seen  John  Surratt 
for  a  considerable  lime  before  the  assassination,  and  that  I  had  seen  a  letter  from 
him  dated  April  12 ;  but  I  did  not  state  to  the  Secretary  or  to  Mr.  Ford  that 
I  knew  where  John  Surratt  was  when  the  blow  was  struck,  because  I  did  not 
know. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  knew  or  not ;  that  is  not  the 
question.  I  ask  you  if  you  did  not  tell  Mr.  John  T.  Ford  that  you  had  had 
an  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  had  told  him  all  you  knew  about 
that  affair,  and  of  John  Surratt's  whereabouts  at  the  time  of  the  assassination, 
and  that  you  had  not  seen  John  Surratt  for  ten  days  or  two  weeks  before,  and 
that  you  had  seen  a  letter  which  satisfied  you  that  John  Surratt  was  in  Canada 
at  the  time? 

A.  I  believe  I  have  told  Mr.  John  T.  Ford  that ;  I  have  told  it  on  the  stand 
here  ;  but  I  did  not  tell  Mr.  Ford  that  I  knew  where  John  Surratt  was  when 
the  assassination  took  jdace. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again,  if  you  did  not  tell  Mr.  Ford,  also,  of  the  cipher  which 
had  been  given  to  you,  and  explained  to  him  how  it  was? 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  did  not  tell  Mr.  Maddox  and  j\Ir.  Gifford  that  you 
were  told  by  Mr.  Bingham  that  if  you  did  not  state  more  fully  than  you  had 
done,  all  you  knew,  you  would  be  treated  as  one  of  the  conspirators — not 
hi  those  precise  words,  but  the  substance  1 

(Mr.  Pierrepont  objected. 

Objection  withdrawn.) 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Do  you  say  you  did  not? 

A.  I  never  heard  Mr,  Bingham  make  a  remark  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question. 

A.  I  gave  you  my  answer.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  anything  of 
the  kind. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  you  did  not  tell  them  of  any  interview  with  Mr.  Bingham, 
in  which  Mr.  Bingham  had  used  that  language  to  you  ? 

A.  I  may  have  spoken  of  an  interview  with  Mr.  Bingham,  but  I  never  told 
them  that  Mr.  Bingham  used  threatening  language,  because  Mr.  Bingham  did 
not  use  threatening  language. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  whether  you  have  not  said  since  you  have  been  here  as  a 
witness  that  your  character  was  at  stake  in  this  issue,  and  that  you  intended  to 
do  all  you  could  to  aid  the  prosecution  1 

Witness.  Whether  1  made  that  statement  on  the  stand  here? 

Mr.  Bradley.  No,  sir;  in  the  passage  there,  before  you  came  upon  the  staud. 

A.  I  may  have  said  so. 

Q.  1  ask  you  whether  you  have  not  stated  to  Mr.  Rocoford,  in  substance, 


450  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

that  the  appointment  given  to  you  in  Philadelphia  was  the  fulfilment  of  a  prom- 
ise that  you  should  have  an  office  under  the  government  for  the  testimony  you 
had  given  in  this  matter,  and  that  the  government  would  protect  you  1 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Objection  sustained.     Exception  reserved.) 

Q.  You  stated  on  Saturday  that  you  were  removed  from  the  customhouse  ia 
Philadelphia  because  you  had  voted  the  radical  republican  ticket.  I  ask  you 
whether  you  have  not  stated  that  you  were  a  thorough  Johnson  man,  and  as 
such  held  your  position  in  that  office  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Objection  sustained.     Exception  reserved.) 

Q.  I  understood  you,  in  your  examination  in  chief,  to  state  that  on  your  re- 
turn from  a  visit  to  Surrattsville  with  Mrs.  Surratt,  you  got  on  the  high  ground 
southeast  of  Washington,  and  made  some  pleasant  remark  as  to  the  beauty  of  the 
scenery  and  position  of  the  country,  and  that  she  replied  to  you,  "  I  am  afraid 
all  this  rejoicing  will  be  turned  into  mourning,  and  all  this  ghidness  into  sor- 
row."   Did  you  say  anything  of  that  kind  before  the  commission  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  say  that  after  the  police  officers  were  gone,  on  the  night  of  the  14th, 
Miss  Anna  Surratt  remarked :  ''0,  ma,  just  think  of  this  man  having  been 
here  an  hour  before  the  assassination — meaninsr  John  Wilkes  Booth.  I  think 
all  this  thing  will  bring  suspicion  on  the  house."  I  want  to  know  why  you 
say  she  meant  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

A.  I  believe  I  have  already  stated  that  when  the  detectives  and  myself  went 
down  stairs  we  announced  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  murdered  by  John 
Wilkes  Booth,  and  that  Mr.  Seward  had  been  assassinated,  but  1  believe  I  said, 
out  of  respect  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  feelings,  that  the  name  of  her  son  had  not  been 
mentioned  at  all  as  being  suspected  of  the  thing. 

Q.  So  that  your  remark  had  reference  to  Booth,  and  you  understood  Miss 
Anna  Surratt  as  i-eplying  to  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  conversation  at  the  time  was  about  Booth. 

Q.  What  did  Mrs.  Surratt  reply  ? 

A.  She  says,  "  Come  what  will,  I  am  resigned,  I  think  J.  Wilkes  Booth 
was  an  instrument  iu  the  hands  of  the  Almighty  to  punish  this  proud  and  licen- 
tious nation." 

Q.  Then  she  understood  her  daughter  to  reply  in  that  way  also  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  presume  so. 

Q.  Did  you  give  one  word  of  this  testimony  before  thg  military  commission  ? 

A.  I  did  not,  simply  because  the  facts  were  not  as  clear  iu  my  mind  then  as 
now. 

Q.  You  say  Mrs.  Surratt  asked  you  to  pray  for  her  intentions  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  this  exclamation  to  which  you  have  referred  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  on  the  14th  of  April. 

Q.  And  before  the  assassination  occurred  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  stated  this  matter  before  to  anybody  ? 

A.  (No  response.) 

Q.  Have  you  written  it  down  1 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not  tvrite  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  written  it  down  ? 

A.  I  have  written  it  all  down  here  within  the  last  five  or  six  months.  I  pre- 
pared a  statement  for  the  prosecuting  attorney. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether,  when  you  first  wrote  it  down,  you  did  not  write 
that  this  exclamation  of  hers,  or  application  to  pray  for  her  intentions,  was  after 
she  had  made  that  remark  in  reply  to  her  daughter  ? 

A  No,  sir;  I  am  positive  I  never  wrote  that  down  as  happening  after  the  as- 
sassination.    She  asked  me  to  pray  for  her  intentions  before  the  assassination  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  451 

Q.  Didn't  jou  tell  us,  on  your  examination  here  the  other  day,  that  she  was 
walking  up  and  down  the  room,  with  beads  in  her  hands,  and  very  nervous  and 
excited  when  she  asked  you  to  pray  for  her  intentions,  after  the  detectives  had 
gone  away  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Plave  you  not  in  a  verbal  or  a  written  statement,  or  both,  said  that  after 
the  detectives  had  gone  away,  and  after  the  remark  of  Miss  Anna  Surratt  and 
the  reply  of  her  mother,  she,  Mrs.  Surratt,  while  walking  up  and  down  the  room 
with  beads  in  her  hands,  and  in  a  state  of  agitation,  asked  you  to  pray  for  her 
intentions,  to  which  you  replied,  "  I  do  not  know  what  your  intentions  are,  and 
I  cannot  pray  f )r  them,"  when  she  answered  "  pray  for  them  anyhow  ]" 

A.  I  am  positive  all  that  occurred  before  the  assassination. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  what  you  are  positive  about,  but  I  am  asking  you 
whether  you  have  not  written  down,  and  have  not  stated,  that  that  thing  oc- 
curred after  the  detectives  lad  gone? 

A.  No.  sir ;   I  do  not  remember  to  have  done  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  When  did  it  occur  1 

A.  Directly  after  I  got  up  from  supper,  while  I  was  sitting  on  the  sofa  with 
Anna  Surratt,  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  and  others. 

Q.  That  same  evening  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  was  this  matter  introduced  ? 

A.  Well,  I  was  sitting  there,  and  she  appeared  to  be  very  nervous.  I  asked 
her  what  was  the  matter.  She  said  she  did  not  feel  well ;  and  then  she  asked 
me  which  way  the  torch-light  procession  was  going  on  the  avenue.  I  told  her 
that  it  was  the  arsenal  employes,  and  that  they  were  going  up  to  serenade  the 
President.  After  walking  up  and  down  awhile,  she  asked  me  the  question  to 
which  you  have  referred. 

Q.  These  three  ladies  you  have  named  were  in  the  room  at  the  time  ? 

A   Yes,  sir. 

Q.  She  said  it  loud  enough  for  them  to  hear. 

A.  I  heard  it. 

Q.  It  was  said  while  you  were  sitting  on  the  sofa  with  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  come  up  and  whisper  it  ? 

A    No,  sir  ;  she  said  it  right  out. 

Q.  Loud  enough  for  them  to  hear  1 

A.  They  might  not  have  paid  attention. 

Q.  Did  not  she  say  it  loud  enough  for  them  to  hear  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  heard  it. 

Q.  You  replied,  and  her  answer  was  in  the  same  audible  tone  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  time  in  the  evening  it  was  you  heard  those  footsteps 
up  stairs  on  the  14th  of  April  1 

A.  I  was  at  supper. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  evening  ? 

A.  About  nine  o'clock,  or  ten  minutes  past.  After  I  returned  from  taking 
the  buggy  back,  I  went  directly  to  the  supper  room. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  at  supper  ? 

A.  Perhaps  ten  minutes. 

Q.  During  that  time  you  heard  footsteps  coming  up  the  steps  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  Mrs.  Surratt  went  to  the  door  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  about  that  you  are  positive  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  testified  to  that  in  1S65,  and  so  testify  now. 


452  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SUKRATT. 

Q.  How  soon  after  she  went  up  did  you  follow  her? 

A.  As  soon  as  I  got  through  supper. 

Q.  How  long  was  the  person  there  ? 

A.  No  more  than  from  three  to  five  minutes. 

Q.  And  you  went  up  immediately  after  the  person  went  out? 

A.  It  must  have  been  almost  immediately. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  her  ? 

A.   She  was  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  What  was  she  doing  then  ? 

A.  Walking  up  and  down  the  room. 

Q.  How  soon  after  you  went  up,  did  the  young  ladies  follow  you  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember ;  they  may  have  come  up  with  me. 

Q.  Did  she  leave  the  room  again  before  you  left  it  1 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Have  not  you  given  us  to  understand  that  she  said,  while  you  all  were 
amusing  yourselves,  that  you  were  making  too  much  noise  ? 

A.  I  believe  she  was  in  the  room  all  the  time  we  were  in  there. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  if  there  was  any  time  that  evening  after  she  went  up  stairs, 
when  she  could  have  gone  down  into  the  supper  room  to  get  supper  for  another 
person  ? 

A.  She  could,  after  I  went  to  bed. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  to  bed  1 

A.  A  few  minutes  before  ten — perhaps  ten  o'clock. 

Q.  Up  to  the  time  you  went  to  bed,  could  she  have  gone  down  there  to  get 
supper  for  anybody  else  without  your  knowing  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  she  could  have  gone. 

Q.  Although  she  was  in  the  room  all  the  time  until  you  went  to  bed  ? 

A.  She  could  have  gone  down  there  without  my  knowing  it,  and  have  fur- 
nished supper.  She  could  not  have  gone  down  without  my  knowing  it,  but  she 
could  have  furnished  supper  without  my  knowing  it. 

Q.  How  furnish  supper  without  your  knowing  it  ? 

A.   She  need  not  have  told  me  what  she  went  down  stairs  for  ? 

Q.  Did  she  go  down  stairs? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Was  she  absent  from  that  room  long  enough  to  go  down  stairs  ? 

A.  It  is  my  impression  she  was  in  the  room  all  the  time  I  was  there.  I  did 
not  see  h(!r  leave  the  room. 

Q.  Are  you  quite  sure  that  person  ran  up  the  steps,  and  ran  down  again? 

A.  I  heard  footsteps ;  I  was  sure  in  '65,  and  I  am  sure  now. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anybody  come  in  the  basement  door  after  that? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  more  than  one  person  who  went  up  those  steps? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  None  went  into  the  basement  door  that  you  know  of? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  I  go  back  to  the  night  of  the  3d  of  April.  Had  Mrs.  Surratt  been 
absent  during  the  day  of  the  3d  of  April  ? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  evening  did  you  see  John  Surratt  ? 

A.  About  half  past  six  or  seven  o'clock. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  I  was  sitting  in  the  parlor,  as  was  also  his  mother,  when  he  walked  into 
the  room. 

Q.  Before  or  after  supper? 

A.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

C^.  He  took  supper  with  you? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  453 

A.  We  only  took  two  meals  a  clay.     "We  did  not  take  supper. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  have  supper  Friday  ? 

A.  Simply  for  the  reason  that   I  ate  no   dinner  that   day,  and  I  was  conse- 
quently pretty  hungry  ;  I  had  to  eat  something  when  I  came  home. 

Q.  You  were  all  down  in  the  dining-room  on  the  evening  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  not  any  of  them  had  anything  to  eat  that  day? 

A.  I  suppose  they  had;  they  took  some  lunch  with  me  at  one  o'clock,  I  had 
not  anything  to  eat  from  one  o'clock  until  I  got  home,  and  I  felt  very  hungry. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  you  were  not  in  the  dining-room  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  on  the  even- 
ing of  the  3d  of  April  with  John  Surratt? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  About  half  past  six  or  seven  you  say  he  came  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  he  did  not  leave  the  room  then  until  he 
came  out  with  you? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  Surratt  went  down  stairs  to  get  his  supper 
or  not. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  that  he  did]     Have  not  you  said  so? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  have  not  a  distinct  recollection,  and  I  have  not  said  so. 

Q.  You  have  not  said  that  John  Surratt  came  in  and  sat  there  for  a  few  mo- 
ments, and  then  went  down  to  the  dining-room  to  get  his  supper? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  said  so,  because  I  am  not  positive  of  that  fact.  He 
may  have  taken  supper  there. 

Q.  On  the  evening  of  the  3d  of  April  did  not  the  ladies  go  down  there  into 
the  supper  room,  and  was  not  John  Surratt  there? 

A.  No,  sir;  because  I  had  my  dinner  at  three  o'clock,  I  did  not  want  nny 
supper.     I  am  positive  that  I  took  no  supper  on  the  third  of  April. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  down  into  the  dining-room  when  tea  was  made  that  even- 
ing, and  have  not  said  you  did  ? 

A.  Not  that  1  remember. 

Q.  If  I  understood  you  rightly,  your  impression  is  that  the  person  who  came 
up  the  steps  on  the  night  of  the  fourteenth  of  April  came  into  the  parlor.  Can 
you  say  whether  he  came  into  the  parlor,  or  only  into  the  vestibiile  or  hall  ? 

A.  1  am  positive  I  heard  his  footsteps  going  into  the  parlor. 

Q.  And  you  are  positive  that  when  the  door  bell  rang.  Mrs.  Surratt  went  up, 
opened  the  door,  and  let  him  in  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  Miss  Anna  Surratt  do  that? 

A.  Not  tliat  I  remember, 

Q.  Was  the  ring  loud  enough  to  attract  the  attention  of  everybody  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  bell  was  a  very  loud  one;  it  was  the  loudest  of  any  I  have 
ever  heard  in  the  city  for  a  door  bell. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  the  morning  after  the  assassination  you  met  Mr. 
Holahan  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him? 

A.  At  the  corner  of  Seventh  and  F  streets,  right  in  front  of  the  post  office. 
He  was  coming  from  the  direction  of  Tenth  and  F  streets, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  passed  betvv^een  you  and  him  at  that  time  ? 

A,  We  talked  together.  I  told  him  of  my  suspicions  and  everything  else. 
He  told  me  he  thought  it  was  Atzerodt  who  had  assassinated  the  Secretary  of 
State.     We  then  went  round  to  breakfast. 

Q.  Is  that  all  that  passed,  as  well  as  you  can  recollect  ? 

A.  That  is  all  I  recollect. 


454  TRIAL   OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Then  when  yon  went  to  breakfast,  you  said  you  intended  to  go  out  and 
disclose  all  you  knew  about  it  1 

A.  I  said  I  intended  to  tell  all  I  knew,  but  I  did  not  say  I  intended  to  dis- 
close anything,  because  I  did  not  know  anything  of  this  murder. 

Q.  You  are  confident  you  said  at  the  breakfast  table  what  you  have  stated 
here  you  did  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  Mrs.  Holahan  and  Mrs.  Surratt  heard  me. 

Q.  Mrs.  Hollahan,  Mr.  Holahan,  Miss  Jenkins,  and  Miss  Dean  were  all  there? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  Miss  Dean  was  there  or  not;  I  know  Anna  Sur- 
ratt was  there,  and  I  know  very  well,  too,  what  remark  was  made  there. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Bolt  it  out. 

Witness.  That  the  death  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  no  more  than  the  death 
of  a  negro  in  the  army. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  that  down  at  the  commission  trial  1 

A.  No,  sir.  Mrs.  Surratt  did  not  say  that ;  somebody  else  said  it.  Some- 
body at  the  table  said  it  in  her  presence. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  Miss  Anna  Surratt  said  it  ? 

A.  I  know  very  well  what  she  said. 

Q.  Who  said  ? 

A.  Miss  Anna  Surratt.  I  know  very  well  what  was  said ;  (after  a  slight 
pause,)  she,  Miss  Anna  Surratt,  did  say  it. 

Q.  You  never  thought  to  tell  that  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   because  I  had  too  much  sympathy  for  the  poor  girl. 

Q.  Why  do  you  tell  it  now  ? 

A.  Because  you  bring  it  out. 

Q.  Did  I  bring  out  your  "  voluntary  "  statement  ? 

A.  I  have  told  it  because  I  have  been  hunted  down  and  persecuted  on  ac- 
count of  these  very  people. 

Q.  Isn't  it  your  impression  that  if  John  Surratt  is  acquitted  you  will  be 
hunted  down  a  little  harder  ? 

A.  O,  I  am  not  afraid  of  being  hunted  down. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Lewis  Garland  ? 

A.  Slightly. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  having  a  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject  of  your 
testimony,  and  your  knowledge  in  regard  to  this  alleged  conspiracy  'I 

A.  I  had  several  talks  with  him. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  the  city  here,  on  the  street. 

Q,  Do  you  I'emember  a  conversation  with  him  when  Mr.  John  Brophy  was 
present  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  right  in  front  of  his  house.  I  remember  that  I  saw  Mr.  Brophy, 
and  Mr.  Garland  was  in  my  company  at  the  time,  but  I  do  not  remember  what 
passed. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  stating  in  that  conversation,  or  in  any  other  with  Mr. 
Garland  or  ]\tr.  Brophy,  that  if  Captain  Gleason  had  not  betrayed  you,  you  never 
would  have  said  a  word  about  this  matter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  an  affidavit  made  by  Mr,  Bropliy,  before  Mr.  Gallan  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw  it  two  years  ago.  Mr.  Gleason  never  went  to  the  War 
Department  until  about  ten  days  after  I  had  first  given  the  information. 

Q.  About  three,  perhaps  four,  weeks  before  the  assassination — at  all  events 
after  this  horseback  ride  of  which  you  have  spoken — I  want  to  know  what  you 
said  to  Mr.  Garland  or  to  Mr.  Brophy  ? 

A.  I  will  just  tell  you  what  I  did  say. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  want  you  to  go  back  and  tell  the  fiicts  in  your  way, 
but  what  you  said. 


TRIAL   OP  JOHN   H.   SURRATT.  455 

A.  I.  do  not  remember. 

Q.  I  thought  you  said  you  would  tell  me  what  you  did  say.  Cau  you  tell 
me  what  you  did  say  ? 

Witness.  To  whom  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  To  Mr.  Brophy  or  to  Mr.  Garland,  or  to  both. 

"Witness.  I  was  just  going  to  tell  the  narrative. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  want  the  narrative,  but  only  what  you  stated. 

A.  I  cannot  tell  it  in  any  other  way. 

Q.  You  cannot  state  what  you  said  to  either  of  them  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  I  said  that  Mr.  Gleason  betrayed  me,  because  Mr.  Glea- 
son  never  did  betray  me. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  that,  but  I  ask  what  you  did  say  to  either  or  both  of 
them  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  saving  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  l)id  you  state  to  either  of  them  that  you  were  not  willing  to  return  from 
Canada,  but  the  detectives  had  you  in  charge,  and  you  were  compelled  to  come 
back? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  you  did  not  tell  Mr.  Lewis  Garland  so  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  Or  Mr.  Brophy  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Bradley,  that  is  simply  an  absurdity,  and  before  you  get 
through  with  this  trial  you  will  be  satisfied  it  is  an  absurdity. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Suppose  you  let  counsel  on  the.  other  side  take  care  of  that. 
At  present  we  want  the  facts. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Brophy  or  Mr.  Garland,  or  either  of  them,  that  on  one 
occasion  Mrs.  Surratt  called  her  son  aside,  in  your  presence,  and  said  to  him, 
"  John,  I  am  afraid  there  is  something  going  on.  Why  do  these  men  come 
here  1  Now,  John,  I  do  not  feel  easy  about  this,  and  you  must  tell  me  what 
you  are  about." 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  told  them  shortly  after  Booth  and  Atzerodt  commenced  coming 
to  the  house,  tliat  Mrs.  Surratt  was  very  much  exercised  about  their  coming 
there.  I  did  hear  her  say,  "  John,  what  are  these  men  doing  here  ?  What 
business  have  they  with  you  V  or  something  to  that  effect.  And  she  stated  to 
me  that  she  would  know  what  John  had  to  do  with  it,  and  she  took  John  into 
the  parlor  and  closed  the  door.  Whether  John  disclosed  his  business  or  not  I 
do  not  know.  I  afterwards  asked  her  what  business  John  was  engaged  in,  and 
she  said  he  told  her  he  was  engaged  in  cotton  speculations. 

Q.  Didn't  they  ask  you  if  John  told  her,  and  didn't  you  reply  that  he  did 
not  and  would  not  tell  her  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  1  do  not  remember  to  have  made  that  reply. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  between  you  and  Howell,  the  blockade  runner,  about 
your  going  to  Richmond  1 

A.  I  said  I  would  like  to  go  to  Richmond  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  my 
theological  studies.     1  would  have  crossed  the  river  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  Is  there  any  college  there? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  it  was  not  necessary  to  have  a  college  there  ;  I  could  have  studied 
in  a  bishop's  house.  I  was  so  anxious  ever  since  leaving  college  to  go  on  with 
my  studies  that  I  would,  as  I  have  before  stated,  have  crossed  the  river  for  the 
purpose.  Even  for  that  purpose  I  sent  two  letters  by  a  flag  of  truce  boat  to 
Bishop  McGill  during  the  war,  and  I  received  an  answer  to  one  of  them  January 
15,  18G5. 

Q.  You  were  very  anxious  to  go  to  Richmond  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  And  you  were  at  the  same  time  talking  with  Ilowell  about  how  you  could 
get  across.     Didn't  you  tell  him  all  your  sympathies  were  with  the  South  1 


456  TEIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  0,  I  have  talked  secesh  very  often  in  my  life  for  buncombe,  especially 
with  such  men  as  Mr.  Howell. 

Q.  And  associated  with  him,  Atzerodt,  Booth,  John  Surratt  1  I  believe  you 
say  you  scarcely  knew  Payne  1 

A.  I  never  had  much  to  say  to  Payne ;   I  have  detailed  here  all  the  conversa- 
tion I  ever  had  with  him ;  I  never  visited  him  at  the  Herndon  House.     Any- 
body, before  the  assassination,  would  have  been  glad  to  have  associated  with 
Mr.  Booth. 
Q.  Why  ? 

A.  Because  he  was  in  such  respectable  society  ;  he  was  such  an  elegant  and 
polished  gentleman. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  "  such  respectable  society  ?  " 
A.  Well,  members  of  Congress. 

Q.  You  have  not  put  him  with  anybody  except  these  people  ? 
A.  0,  yes,   sir ;   I  have  seen  him  in  company  with  John  McCullough  and 
members  of  Congress. 

Q.  McCullough  is  an  actor  also,  isn't  he  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  else  did  you  ever  see  him  associating  with  ?  Did  you  ever  see  him 
in  the  society  of  ladies  outside  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  not  that  I  remember  of ;   I  knew  he  was  courting  a  lady  here. 
Mr.  PiEKREPoNT.  I  submit  to  your  honor  that  this  is  not  right  in  any  shape ; 
that  it  is  neither  legal  nor  proper. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  see  that  there  is  any  relevancy  in  the  testimony.  I 
would  be  very  glad,  Mr.  Bradley,  if  you  could  shorten  these  examinations  as 
much  as  possible. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  shall  endeavor  to  shorten  the  examination,  sir,  as  much  as 
possible ;  but  the  great  extent  of  ground  covered  by  this  witness  in  his  two  ex- 
aminations renders  it  necessary  for  me  to  travel  over  rather  a  wide  range.  I 
have  sought,  up  to  this  moment,  to  confine  myself  to  questions  strictly  relevant 
and  proper. 

The  Court.  Proceed  with  the  examination. 

Q.  Weie  you  confined  in  the  Old  Capitol  with  Mr.  Holahan,  or  any  one  else  ? 
A.  I   was   confined   in   Carroll   prison,   with   about  thirty   or  forty   bounty 
jumpers. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Holahan  one  of  them  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir ;   1  did  not  say  he  was ;  but  he  was  a  bounty  broker. 
Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  you  were  with  him  ? 

A.  Part  of  the  time  I  was,  and  part  of  the  time  I  was  not.  When  I  was 
first  there  he  was  put  in  solitary  confinement. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  were  confined  in  the  same  room  with  him  ? 

A.  At  first  I  was  not  confined  in  the  same  room. 

Q.  Were  you  confined  with  him  at  all  in  Carroll  prison  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  confined  with  him  there  ? 

A.  I  was  confined  there  thirty  days ;   I  think  he  got  out  before  I  did. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  of  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSIO.N. 

Louis  J.  Weichmaxx — examination  resumed  : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  When  the  court  took  a  recess  I  had  just  asked  you  some  questions  about 
Mr.  Carland  and  ]Mr.  Brophy.  I  want  you  to  state  whether,  after  the  conspir- 
acy trials,  you  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Carland  in  reference  to  testimony 
you  had  given  on  that  trial? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT.  457 

A    I  had  several  conversation s  wifli  liira. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  going  willi  him  one  evening  to  St.  Aloysius  church,  and 
sitting  on  the  steps  of  the  church,  and  having  a  conversation  with  him  in  refer- 
ence to  the  testimony  you  had  given. 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  particular  evening  ;  as  I  said,  we  had  several  con- 
versations, and  talked  this  whole  thing  over. 

Q    Since  the  court  took  a  recess  have  you  seen  Mr.  Garland  ? 
A    I  merely  shook  hands  with  him. 
Q    Is  that  all  that  passed  ? 

A.  I  remarked  to  him,  "  Old  fellow,  I  see  you  are  going  to  be  a  witness 
against  me.     Go  ahead."     He  tohl  me  he  could  not  help  it;  it  was  his  duty. 

(^.  Do  you  recollect  going  with  him  to  Dubaut's  saloon  on  one  of  these  oc- 
casions ? 

A.   I  do  not  know  where  Dubant's  saloon  is. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  go  with  him  to  a  saloon  on  the  corner  of  Sixth  street  and 
Pennsylvania  avenue  ? 
A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  take  a  walk  witli  him  and  Mr.  Brophy? 
A.   No,  sir.     I  once  met  him  at  Mr.  Brophy's  house. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  stating  to  Mr.  Garland,  in  the  course  of  your  interviews 
with  him  about  that  time,  that  your  conscience  was  greatly  troubled  about  the 
testimony  you  had  given  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember  anything  of  the  kind. 
Q.  J^ither  in  substance  or  effect? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  saying  to  him  that  you  were  going  to  confession  to 
relieve  you  conscience  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  his  saying  to  you,  "  That's  not  the  right  way,  Mr. 
Weichmann  ;"  you  had  better  go  to  a  magistrate  and  make  a  statement  under 
oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  replying  to  him,   "  I  would  take  that  course  if  I  were 
nut  afraid  of  being  indicted  for  perjury  ?" 
A.  Not  at  all 

Q.  Do  you  remember  stating  to  him  that  the  testimony  you  had  given  was 
prepared  for  you,  written  out  for  you,  and  that  when  you  awoke  in  the  morning 
you  were  told  that  you  must  swear  to  the  substance  of  that  paper  ? 
A.  Pshaw  !     No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  of  his   telling  you  then  that  you  ought  to  go  to  a 
magistrate  and  make  a  statement  of  the  facts  as  they  really  occurred  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.   Do  you  remember  telling  him   that  you  were  obliged    to    swear   to  that 
statement  or  you  would  be  threatened  with  prosecution   for  perjury,  or  threat- 
ened to  be  charged  as  one  of  the  conspirators  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nothing  of  the  kind  ever  occurred? 
A.  No,  sir.     I  did  want  to  go  to  confession  at  that  time. 
Mr.  Br.xdlev.  Never  mind  what  you  wanted  to  do  at  that  time.     I  want  to 
know  what  was  said. 

WiTNKSS.  I  do  not  remember  anything  of  the  kind.  These  questions  look  so 
silly  to  me  that  1  almost  hate  to  answer  them ;  I  never  heard  of  such  things  be- 
fore. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  will  see  about  that.  I  do  not  want  to  enter  into  a  discus- 
sion just  now. 

30 


458  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  about  a  man  being  in   your  room  with  you  at  Carroll 
pri:?on,  and  Lis  stating  to  you  that  you  had  made  these  confessions  or  statements 
in  your  sleep,  and  that  he  had  written  them  down  1 
A.  No,  sir  ;  nothing  of  the  kind  ever  occurred. 
Q.  You  know  Mr.  Lewis  Garland  ? 
A.  Slightly. 

Q.  And  had  talks  with  him  ?  ' 

A.  Two  or  three  times. 

Q.  Had  conversations  with  him  about  that  time,  after  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;   but  I  do  not  remember  anything   of  the  conversatiim  that  you 
have  stated,  and  1  swear  positively,  on  my  solemn  oath,  that  1  never  said  any- 
thing of  the  kind.     I  Avill  put  my  word  against  the  whole  world  in  the  matter. 
Q.  Did  you  not  state  to  him  that  you  would  have  given  very  different  testi- 
mony if  it  had  not  been  for  that  which  was  written  down  for  you  ? 
A.  No.  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  tell  him  that  you  could   have  given  an  explanation  of  Mrs. 
Sunatt's  visit  to   Surrattsville  on  the    14th  of  April  which   would  have  been 
greatly  in  her  favor,  if  you  had  been  allowed  to  'I 
A.  No,  sir  ;  1  said  nothing  of  the  kind. 

Q,.  Do  you  remember  or  not  that  on  the  day  you  visited  Mr.  John  Brophy's, 
or  any  other  day,  you  met  Father  Wiget  at  St.  Aioysius  church,  when  you  were 
Avith  Mr.  Garland  ? 

A.  I  met  him  several  times. 
Q.  I  mean  when  with  Mr.  Lewis  Carland  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  1  do  not  remember  that  I  saw  Father  Wiget  when  with  Mr.  Gar- 
land at  any  time. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  then,  when  you  were  walking  with  Mr.  Garland,  of 
stopping  some  time  on  the  steps  of  St.  Aloysius  cliurcli,  and  Father  Wiget  coming 
up  and  saying  to  you  that  he  had  been  on  an  excursion  of  the  Sabbath  school, 
and  that  one  of  the  children  had  fallen  overboard,  but  had  been  rescued  by  a 
man  jumping  in  after  him  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  of  ever  having  seen  Mr.  Carland  and  Father 
Wiget  together. 

Q.  Then,  as  I  understand  you,  you  do  not  recollect  any  walk  with  ^Ir.  Car- 
land  in  which  you  spoke  of  the  testimony  you  had  given  on  the  trial  of  the  con- 
spirators 1 

A.  I  spoke  about  my  testimony,  because  that  was  uppermost  in  my  mind. 
Q.  Do  you  remember  saying  anything  about  suicide  i 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  reciting  portions  of  Hamlet  ? 
A.  0,  I  have  done  that. 

Q.  I  am  talking  now  of  what  was  said  and  done  in  your  conversations  with 
Mr.  Carland  at  that  time. 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember,  on  any  such  occasion  of  reciting  portions  of 
Hamlet. 

Q.  In  regard  to  suicide  or  self-destruction  1 
Witness.  What,  "  To  be,  or  not  to  be  V 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  ask  what  it  was.  I  ask  you  whether  you  had  a  talk 
on  the  subject  of  suicide  with  Mr.  Carland. 

A.  O,  1  might  have  had  ;  1  do  not  care  whether  1  did  or  not. 
Q    Do  you  remember  of  more  than  once;  taking  out  a  revolver  and  showing  it 
to  him,  and  talking  about  self-destruction  ? 

A.  is^o,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  anything  of  the  kind.  It  is  the  first  time  I 
have  heard  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  say  now  positively  that  on  one  of  these  occasions  when  you  were 
telling  Mr.  Carland  about  your  testimony,  you  did  not  recite  to  him  passages 
from  Hamlet  on  self-murder? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  459 

A.  I  do  not  say  tbat  I  did   not.     I  say  I  do  not  remember  of  doing  so.     I 
have  recited  that  s:\me  ]);is!5age  over  two  hundred  times,  and  I  might  have  taken 
out  a  revolver,  and  might  have  also  looked  down  its  barrels. 
Q.  "When  you  were  with  him? 

A.   T  miffht  have  done  so.     I  carried  a  revolver  at  that  time. 
Q.  But  not  with  a  view  of  self-destruction? 
A.  No,  sir ;   I  am  too  much  of  a  coward  for  that. 

Q.  Now   I  understand  you  to   say  positively  that  you   never  did   tell   Mr. 
Garland  that  you  were  going  to   confession  to  ease  your  conscience  about  the 
testimony  that  you  had  given  on  that  trial  at  the  arsenal. 
A.  I  will  tell  you  all  about  that  confession  matter. 
j\[r.  Braoi.p^y.  You  know  the  question  I  asked  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  to  have  said  anything  to  ^Ir.  Garland  about  confession 
at  all. 

Q.  You  deny  stating  to  ^Ir.  Garland  that  your  testimony  before  the  commission 
would  have  been  very  different  if  it  had  not  been  written  down  for  you  ? 
A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  deny  that  Mr.  Garland  advised  you  to  go  tfo  the  magistrate  1 
A.  I  denied  all  that  once  before,  and  I  deny  it  over  again. 
Mr.  Bradlkv.  My  colleagues  think  it  is  important  for  me  to  follow  this  mat- 
ter one  step  further. 

Q.   I  wit^h  to  ask  you  if  you  did  not  state  to  Mr.  Garland  that,  on  the  14th  of 
April,  1865,  before  Mrs.  Surratt  went  to  Surrattsville,  when  she  spoke  to  you 
about  getting  a  buggy,  you  did  not  advise  her  to  send  to  Booth,  and  if  she  did 
not  reply  that  she  did  not  know  that  Booth  was  in  town  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  wish  to  ask  you  further  whether  you  did  not  tell  Mr.  Garland,  when  you 
reached  Surrattsville,  of  Mrs.  Surratt  having  informed  you  that  she  was  going 
to  see  ^[r.  Nothey  on  business,  having  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Galvert  re([nir- 
ing  immediate  attention  ;  that  when  you  found  Mr.  Nothey  was  not  there  that 
you  met  Mr.  Jenkins  ;  that  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  turned  round  to  come  home  and 
then  the  spring  of  the  buggy  was  broken  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  1  believe  I  did  meet  Mr.  Jenkins  on  the  road  toward  home — I 
do  not  know  whether  we  met  him  at  Surrattsville — and  that  Mrs.  Siuratt  said, 
"AVhat  do  you  think  of  our  army  now  1  Our  army  has  surrendered" — mean- 
ing the  Union  army. 

Q.  You  told  31  r.  Garland  that,  did  you  ? 

A.   I  do  not  know  that  I  did  ? 

Q.  I  want  to  know  what  you  told  Mr.  Garland  ? 

A.  I  told  Mr.  Garland  nothing  at  all  about  breaking  the  spring  of  the  buggy. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  what  1  stated  ? 

A.  I  deny  that  I  said  so. 

By  Mr.  Pikrrepo.vt: 
Q.  Just  as  the  court  adjourned,  you  spoke  of  having  been  thirty  days  in 
GarroU  prison,  about  which  you  have  been  asked  several  times ;  what  did  that 
mean  ? 

A.  .1  was  there  as  a  government  witness. 
Q,  Were  you  there  for  any  crime  / 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  all  you  were  there  for? 
A.  Y"es,  sir  ;  that  was  all. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  this  order  and  see  if  it  is  the  order  under  which  you 
were  appointed  one  of  the  special  officers  to  go  in  pursuit  of  the  assassins  ? 
(Order  shown  to  witne.^s.) 

A.  Y^es,  sir;  that  is  a  copy  of  the  official  order  which  was  sent  to  me.     The 


460  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

original  order  is  iu   ^fcDeAntt's   possession.     This   copy  is  certified  to  by  Cap- 
tain Russell  and  others. 

The  order,  after  being  exhibited  to  court  and  counsel,  was  read  and  placed 
in  evidence,  as  follows  : 

[Special  Orders  No.  68. — Extract.] 

Headquarters  Department  of  Washington, 
Office  Provost  Marshal,  Department  North  of  Potomac, 

A]>ril  16,  1865. 
Special  Officers  James  A.  McDevitt,  George  Hollahan,  and  Louis  J.  Weich- 
mann,  are  hereby  ordered  to  proceed  to  New  York  city  on  important  government 
business,  and  after  executing  their  private  orders,  return  to  this  city  and  report 
at  these  headquarters. 

The  quartermaster's  department  will  furnish  the  necessary  transportation. 
By  command  of  Major  General  Augur: 

T.  INGRAHAM, 
Colonel  and  Provost  Marshal  General,  Department  north  of  Potomac, 

Official  : 

G.  B.  RUSSELL, 
Captain  and  Assistant  Provost  Marshal  General. 

Q.  You  said  on  your  cross-examination  that  at  some  time — you  have  not  given 
the  time — Miss  Sun-att  said  in  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  that  the  death  of 
Lincoln  was  of  no  more  importance  than  that  of  any  nigger  in  the  army.  Will 
you  state  the  time  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  on  the  ground  the  witness  had  already 
stated  the  precise  time. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  did  not  so  understand  it. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  had  already  stated  the  time,  but  if  counsel  had 
not  understood  Ijim  to  state  it,  they  were  entitled  again  to  have  the  question 
answered. 

Witness.  It  was  on  the  15th  of  April,  and  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Hollahan, 
Mrs.  Hollahan,  myself,  and  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  that  she  said  the  death  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  no  more  than  the  death  of  any  nigger  in  the  army, 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  noted  to  the  reception  of  this  evidence. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  there  is  aboi;t  this  confession  you  have  been  asked 
about. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  as  not  having  been  called  for  by  any- 
thing on  cross-examination. 

The  Court  said  he  understood  the  confession  to  have  been  stated  in  the  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Garland  wliich  was  brought  out  on  cross-examination.  The 
witness  could  be  asked  to  state  that  entire  conversation. 

Witness.  1  never  spoke  to  Mr.  Garland  at  all  about  the  confession. 

Q,  Then  I  will  ask  you  about  Brophy.  Was  there  anything  in  your  conversa- 
tion with  him  connected  with  this  confession  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  about  this  confession  in  what  was  said  by  you  to 
either  of  thesp  men  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick. 

Objection  overruled.) 

A.  Nothing  at  all.  I  deny  that  I  ever  said  anything  to  them  about  confession 
at  all.     I  did  not  go  to  confession  eithei-. 

The  examination  of  the  witness  here  closed. 

Mrs.  Mary  Benson  recalled  and  examined  by  the  district  attorney. 

Q,  I  omitted  to  ask  one  question  in  your  examination  ;  be  good  enough  to 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  461 

examine  this  plioto2;i'aph,  (photograph  of  B  loth  exhibited,)  and  state  to  the 
jury  whctlier  it  resembles  the  person  you  saw  ou  the  Third  avenue  car  on  the 
occasion  to  which  you  referred  1 

A.  There  is  a  resemblance  both  in  the  face  and  head. 

Q.  That  person  was  disguised  you  say  in  the  manner  you  have  described  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradlev. 

Q.  Be  good  enough  to  state,  for  I  may  have  misunderstood  you  in  reference 
to  the  hand  of  that  person,  whether  your  attention  was  in  any  way  directed  to 
that  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Describe  to  the  jury  what  was  the  particular  thing  that  attracted  your 
attention  ? 

A.  He  had  a  very  small  white  hand. 

Q.  (Contrasting  at  all  with  his  complexion  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Much  lighter  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  much  lighter  than  the  front  of  his  face  which  was  apparently 
stained. 

Q.  His  hands  attracted  your  attention  ;  did  they  look,  as  if  they  had  been 
used  in  labor  at  all  ? 

A.  They  did  not. 

Q.  Was  it  so  small,  delicate  a  hand  as  to  particularly  attract  your  attention  ? 

A.  It  was  the  hand  of  a  gentleman  ;  a  very  small  white  hand.  I  suppose  I 
noticed  him  particularly,  seeing  that  he  was  disguised. 

Q.  And  was  that  delicate  hand  what  led  you  tirst  to  notice  the  other  features  ? 

A.  I  noticed  the  disguise  first  and  then  I  noticed  him  more  particularly. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  if  he  wore  gloves  at  all? 

A.  He  had  a  gauntlet  glove  on  the  other  hand. 

Q.  AYhich  hand  was  exposed  ? 

A.  The  right  hand. 

Q.  A  I'emarkably  small,  delicate  hand  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  district  attorney  stated  that  he  desired  to  call  Dr.  McMillan  as  the  next 
witness. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  they  had  sent  a  subpoena  duces  tecum,  to  the  Secretary  of 
State,  to  which  no  response  had  been  made.  A  response  had  been  I'eceived 
from  Mr.  Frederick  Seward.  He  desired  the  original  document  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  cross-examination  of  this  witness. 

Mr.  PibRRKPONT  stated  that  the  Secretary  of  State  had  been  otit  of  town  ; 
that  he  had  received  a  printed  leaf  from  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  State,  the 
Assistant  Secretary  stating  that  it  was  in  response  to  a  communication  from  the 
counsel. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  they  were  entitled  to  a  return  to  be  made  by  the  Secre- 
tary to  the  court. 

Mr.  PiERREP  iNT  said  the  examination  of  the  witness  in  chief  would  not  be 
concluded  to-day,  and  proposed  therefore  to  proceed. 

Lewis  J.  A.  McMilla.n,  surgeon,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PiEKREPO.NT  : 

Q.  In  what  service  are  you  ? 

A.  I  am  out  of  service  now.  I  was  in  the  Montreal  ocean  steamship  service 
two  years  ago. 

Q.  What  ship  were  you  connected  with  ? 

A.  From  April  till  October,  1865,  I  was  surgeon  of  the  steamship  Peruvian. 


462  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  When  did  you  make  your  first  autumn  voyage  from  Montreal  to  Liver- 
pool in  that  year  1 

A.  I  left  Quebec  on  the  16th  of  S 'ptember,  1865,  for  Liverpool. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whetlier  you  stopped  at  Ireland  1 

A.  We  did. 

Q.  Can  you  give  the  date  when  you  reached  Ireland,  and  the  date  when  you 
reached  Liverpool  1 

A.  We  left,  as  I  said  before,  Quebec  on  the  16th,  which  was  Saturday.  On 
Sunday  week  we  arrived  at  Londonderry,  Ireland,  and  the  next  day,  Mon- 
day, about  8  or  9  o'clock  in  the  evening,  at  Liverpool. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  or  night  did  you  land  at  Londonderry,  Ireland  ? 

A.  It  was  between  12  o'clock  Sunday  night  and  one  o'clock  Monday  morning. 

Q.  Do  you  know  this  prisoner  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  he  cross  with  you  on  that  voyage  to  Londonderry  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  when,  where,  and  how  you  tirst  saw  the  prisoner  ?  Re- 
late to  the  jury  just  what  happened. 

A.  I  first  saw  the  prisoner  on  the  mail  steamer  Montreal,  running  from  Mon- 
treal to  Quebec,  on  the  15th  of  September,  1865. 

Q.  How  did  he  happen  to  come  to  you?     What  occurred  that  brought  him  1 

A.  About  a  week  or  ten  days  previous,  I  had  met  in  one  of  the  streets  of 
the  city  of  Montreal — 

Mr.  Bradley  interrupting  witness,  objected  to  his  stating  what  any  one  else 
said. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  that  was  precisely  what  he  proposed  to  prove,  and 
that,  ill  consequence,  the  prisoner  was  brought  to  witness. 

The  Court  decided  witness  might  state  that  in  consequence  of  information 
received  from  a  third  party  the  prisoner  was  bi'ought  to  witness. 

Q.  I  understand  you  that  a  week  or  ten  days  previous,  somebody  came  to 
you.     AVho  was  that  somebody? 

A.  His  name  is  La  Pierre. 

Q.  What  or  who  is  he? 

A.  He  is  a  priest. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live? 

A.  I  do  not  know  where  he  lives  now.  He  lived  in  Montreal  then.  I  under- 
stand he  has  left  the  city. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  Surratt? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  he  said 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  need  not  state  what  he  said. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Well,  he  said  something  in  relation  to  somebody  ? 

A.  Yes;  that  somebody  was  going.  I  was  going  on  the  15th  of  September 
to  join  ray  ship.  On  the  steamer  Montreal  I  met  this  Mr.  La  Pierre  again,  by 
agreement.     He  said  to  me  that  he  would  give  me  an  introduction  to  his  friend. 

Q.  Did  he  introduce  him? 

A.  He  brought  me  up  to  a  state  room,  of  which  he  had  the  key. 

Q.  Who  had  the  key? 

A...  La  Pierre. 

Q.  State  whether  it  was  locked. 

A.  It  was.  He  unlocked  the  door,  and  in  the  room  I  found  the  prisoner  at 
the  bar. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  time  you  had  seen  him,  when  the  door  was  unlocked  ? 

A.  The  first  time. 

Q.  What  did  he  say,  in  the  presence  of  the  prisoner? 

A.  He  introduced  the  prisoner  to  me  under  the  nam(i  of  jMcCarty,  the  friend 
to  whom  he  had  referred  before.     1  never  suspected  who  the  gentleman  was, 


I 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  463 

and  consequontly  I  pn^^cfl  the  evening  and  most  of  the  niglit  with  bim  and  a 
third  party  hesides  the  priest. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury,  when  you  went  into  that  room  and  found  the  pris- 
oner, what  was  ihe  condition  of  his  hair? 

A.  His  hair  was  then  short. 

Q.  What  was  its  color? 

A.  A  dark  brown,  I  should  say. 

Q.  Was  it  dyed,  or  natural  ? 

A.  1  did  not  perceive  that  night  that  it  was  dyed.     I  afterwards  found  it  out. 

Q.  What  was  the  conversation  about  that  evening  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember ;  it  was  a  general  conversation. 

Q.   I'id  La  Pierre  go  on  with  you  down  to  Quebec? 

A.  He  caiue  all  the  way  down  to  Quebec. 

Q.  When  did  you  reach  Quebec? 

A.  I  should  say  between  five  and  six  o'clock,  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  Do  you  know  ^,'hether  La  Pierre  slept  in  this  same  room? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  prisoner  went  out  of  the  room  that  night  ?_ 

A.   1  b(dieve  we  went  down  once  to  the  bar-room. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  niglit  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  suppose  ten  or  eleven  o'clock.  I  could  not  tell  you  the 
time. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  Quebec  what  happened? 

A.  I  believe  we  had  breakfast  on  board  the  steamer  in  the  morning,  probably 
at  seven  or  eight  o'clock.  Between  nine  and  ten  the  company  sent  a  tug  to 
take  the  passengers  and  their  luggage  on  board  the  steamer  Peruvian.  We  all 
went  on  board. 

Q.  What  occurred  about  the  room;  how  was  it  arranged  on  the  steamer  for 
the  prisoner? 

A.  Afler  we  arrived  on  board,  La  Pierre  says  to  me 

The  CoiRT.  Was  it  in  the  presence  of  Surratt? 

AViT\fc:ss.  I  believe  so,  sir.  He  said  he  wished  me  to  let  the  prisoner  remain 
in  my  room  until  the  steamer  had  left.  1  did  so;  1  got  the  key  of  my  room, 
let  him  in,  and  went  with  him. 

Q.  Did  he  occuny  it  until  the  steamer  bad  left? 

A.  He  did. 

Q    When  did  the  steamer  leave? 

A.  Within  a  very  few  minutes;   perhaps  twenty  minutes  or  half  an  hour. 

Q.  Where  did  La  Pierre  go  then? 

A.  He  went  back  on  shore'. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  more  of  the  prisoner  that  night? 

A.    Yes,  I  saw  him  again. 

Q.  Where  did  you  si^e  him?     Li  your  room? 

A.  I  may  have  seeu  him  in  my  room,  but  I  do  not  recollect.  I  remember  that 
while  there,  after  lunch  or  after  dinner,  (lunch  was  at  twelve  and  dinner  at 
four.)  the  prisoner  came  to  me,  and  pointing  to  one  of  the  passengers,  asked  me 
if  I  knew  who  the  gentleman  was.  I  told  him  I  did  not;  that  I  supposed  he 
was  a  passenger  as  be  was  iiiraself ;  that  that  was  all  I  knew  about  the  man. 
He  then  said  he  thought  the  man  was  an  American  detective,  and  that  he 
thought  he  was  after  himself.  I  said  I  did  not  believe  anything  of  the  kind, 
and  that  I  did  not  see  why  he  should  be  afraid  of  an  American  detective.  I  said 
to  him,  "  What  have  you  done  that  you  should  be  afraid  of  an  American  detec- 
tive?" He  said  that  he  had  done  more  things  than  I  was  aware  of,  and  that 
very  likely,  if  I  knew,  it  would  make  me  stare,  or  something  to  that  effect. 

Q.  Li  this  connection,  what  act  did  he  do,  if  any  ? 

A.  I  said  that  he  need  not  be  afraid  of  an  American  detective;  that  he  was  on 


46-1  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

board  a  British  sliip,  iu  British  waters,  and  that  if  an  American  detective  had 
been  after  him,  he  would  have  ti'ied  to  arrest  him  before  he  left  port.  He  said 
that  he  did  not  care  whether  he  was  or  not;  that  if  he  tried  to  arrest  him  this 
would  settle  him — and  in  saying  that,  he  put  his  hand  into  his  waistcoat  pocket, 
and  drew  a  small  four-barrelled  revolver. 

Q.  Did  any  other  parties  go  down  on  that  boat  before  you  took  the  steamer? 

A.  There  were  a  great  many;  I  could  not  tell  you  how  many. 

Q.  Were  there  any  whose  names  were  given  to  you  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  was  on  the  steamer  Montreal. 

Witness.  That  was  on  the  tug  from  the  steamer  Montreal  to  the  steamer 
Peruvian. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that,  without  explanation,  his  testimony  did  not  seem  to 
be  relevant. 

The  Court  said  it  was  not  relevant,  unless  the  parties  named  were  connected 
with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  he  proposed  to  show  that  Beverley  Tucker  and  General 
Ripley  were  among  these  gentlemen;  that  he  supposed  he  had  the  right  to  show 
every  person  on  board  this  tug  going  with  Surratt  to  the  steamer  that  morning. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  parties  named  were  not  known  to  the  court  or  jury  in 
connection  with  this  conspiracy ;  that  the  evidence  in  chief  must  be  pertinent  to 
the  issue,  and  he  submitted  that  this  was  not  admissible. 

Mr.  PlERREPOiXT  said  he  had  the  right  to  .show  who  these  men  were  who  were 
talking  to  Surratt,  or  anybody  else  who  was  on  the  steamer  with  the  prisoner. 

The  Court  decided  that  the  witness  might  be  asked  in  relation  to  any  con- 
versation of  any  party  with  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  had  no  objection  to  that. 

Q.  Now  state  what  men  on  board  that  tug  you  saw  speak  with  Surratt. 

A.  On  the  tug  I  saw  nobody  talk  to  the  prisoner. 

Q.  On  any  of  the  boats  1 

A.  During  the  passage  I  saw  the  prisoner  a  kw  times  in  conversation  with 
General  Ripley. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  What  passage  ? 

A.  The  passage  from  Quebec  to  Liverpool. 

By  Mr.  Pierrep()i\t  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  General  Ripley  was  ? 

A.  I  suppose  I  can  say  what  he  said  he  was. 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  that  it  was  not  a  competent  mode  of  showing  who  the 
witness  was. 

The  Court  decided  that  if  it  could  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Surratt 
that  Surratt  knew  who  he  was  that  would  be  evidence. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  that  was  what  he  was  trying  to  do,  to  show  who  this 
gentleman  told  Surratt  he  was. 

Witness.  The  prisoner  at  the  bar  told  me  afterwards  that  General  Ripley 
was  a  general  in  the  rebel  army. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  you  have  not  been  asked  about. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  It  would  have  been  the  next  question. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Now  take  the  question  the  witness  has  put  into  your  mouth. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  would  take  his  own  question. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  General  Ripley  was  ] 

Mr.  Bradley.  Of  your  own  knowledge? 

WiT.NESS.  Of  my  own  knowledge,  I  do  not  know  who  the  prisoner  was. 

The  District  Attorney.  Or  from  what  the  prisoner  told  you  1 

Witness.  The  prisoner  told  me  he  was  General  Ripley,  of  South  Carolina. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II.    SUKRATT.  4G5 

By  Mr.  PfERRKPoxT  : 

Q.  Now,  sir,  did  the  prisoner  tell  you  who  any  of  the  other  men  were  ? 

A.  No.     I  believe  he  knew  nol)ody  else  on  board. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  other  man  ? 

]\Ir.  Merrick.  Of  your  own  kno w ledge  ? 

A.  Yes. 

AFr.  Bradley.  Any  one  who  was  in  conversation  with  Surratt? 

"Witness.  O,  I  cannot  say  who  may  have  been  in  conversation  with  him 
during  that  ten  days.  He  may  have  been  in  conversation  with  all  on  board  the 
ship. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  did  not  see  him  converse  with  any  one  else? 

Witness.  I  suppose  I  may  state  that  1  knew  one  man  personally. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bradley  objected. 

i\Ir.  I'lERREPONT  said  it  was  competent  to  prove  the  name  of  every  passenger 
on  board  the  ship  in  which  the  prisoner  was. 

Objection  overruled. 

Witness.  There  was  among  the  passengers  William  Cornell  Jewett. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Otherwise  known  as  "Colorado  "  ] 

Witness.  Yes,  sir;  the  very  man. 

Q    Who  else? 

A.  There  was  also  a  colored  man  who  had  been  in  the  service  of  Jefferson 
Davis. 

Mr.  Merrick.  How  do  you  know  that  1 

Witness.  He  told  me  so  himself. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 
Q.  Did  you  hear  the  prisoner  speak  of  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  the  prisoner  did  not  know  any  one  else.  This  man  told  me  so 
himself. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPONT: 

Q.  Did  you  know  Beverley  Tucker  ? 

A.  Only  from  having  been  introduced  to  him  on  that  morning  of  the  16th  of 
September. 

Mr.  Bradley  inquired  if  it  was  proposed  to  connect  him  with  the  prisoner. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  That  is  just  what  I  am  trying  to  bring  about.  (To  witness:) 
Who  introduced  you  to  Beverley  Tucker  1 

(Question  objected  to  unless  iJeverley  Tucker  is  connected  with  the  prisoner. 
Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  where  you  saw  Beverley  Tucker  on  that  day  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.     Objection  overruled. 

A.  I  met  him  on  the  tug  going  from  the  steamer  Montreal  to  the  steamer  Pe- 
ruvian. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  he  went  on  board  the  Peruvian  ? 

A.  He  did  go  on  the  Peruvian,  but  not  to  cross. 

Q.  1  believe  you  stated  that  the  prisoner  went  by  the  name  of  McCarty  ? 

A.  McCarty  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  sail  ? 

A.  1  should  think  about  ten  in  the  morning  ;  T  cannot  say  positively.  I  know 
the  steamers  were  in  the  habit  of  sailing  between  nine  and  ten. 

Q.  When  morning  came  did  you  notice  more  particularly  the  prisoner's  mous- 
tache and  hair  ? 

A.  After  I  got  on  board  the  steamer  I  perceived  that  his  hair  had  been 
dyed. 

Q.  How  about  his  moustache  ? 


466  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  n    surratt. 

A.  And  also  his  moustacLe  ;  it  was  very  thin. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  What  color  1 
A.  Dark  brown. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  What  did  he  wear,  if  anything,  upon  his  eyes? 

A.  He  wore  a  pair  of  spectacles. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  about  the  spectacles  he  wore  and  about  his  hair  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  said  anything  about  his  hair.  I  remember  his 
saying  that  he  did  not  wear  spectacles  because  he  was  short-sighted,  but  because 
they  aided  in  disguising  him  a  little. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  after  you  got  on  the  steamer 
behind  the  wheel-house  ? 

A.  I  had  conversations  with  him  every  day  from  the  16th  until  we  arrived 
at  Londonderry ;  that  was  about  nine  days. 

Q.  Where  did  these  conversations  take  place  ? 

A.  If  I  remember  right,  mostly  on  what  is  called  the  quarter-deck,  sometimes 
behind  the  wheel-house. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  whether  you  tried  to  get  to  him  or  whether  he 
seemed  to  seek  you  1 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick  as  leading  and  improper. 

The  Court  said  Avituess  could  be  asked  how  the  conversations  came  to  take 
place. 

Q.  How  did  it  come  to  pass  ?  D;d  you  seek  to  go  to  him  or  did  he  seek  to 
come  to  you  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick  for  same  reason  as  last. 

Objection  overruled. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  he  said  to  you  about  the  beginning  in  relation  to  a 
trip  to  Richmond  1  As  I  cannot  give  it  all  at  once,  I  will  ask  you  to  begin  with 
that. 

Mr.  Bradley  asked  that  the  witness  should  be  required  to  go  on  in  narrative 
form,  and  state  what  he  knew  in  relation  to  the  matter. 

The  Court  said  that  was  the  regular  course,  but  witness  was  interrupted  to 
wait  for  counsel  to  write  down  the  testimony,  and  it  was  sometimes  necessary 
to  enable  him  to  take  up  the  thread  of  his  narrative  to  interpose  questions. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  remarked  that  it  was  also  necessary  from  the  fact  that  the 
general  question  called  for  conversations  running  through  nine  successive  days  ; 
it  was  necessary  to  refer  to  particular  subjects. 

The  Court  decided  that  counsel  might  proceed,  being  careful  not  to  put  lead- 
ing questions. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  I  remember  his  saying  to  me  that  he  had  been  in  the  habit  for  some  time 
during  the  rebellion  of  going  to  Richmond  with  despatches,  and  bringing  des- 
patches back  to  this  city,  and  also  to  Montreal. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  male  or  female  went  with  him  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick.  The  only  regular  proceeding  was  to 
allow  the  witness  to  go  on  and  give  in  narrative  form  what  was  said,  and  not  be 
interrupted  by  questions. 

The  Court  said  he  would  so  direct  if  counsel  did  not  themselves  interrupt 
witness,  to  enable  them  to  write  down  his  testimony. 

Q.  AVill  you  tell  us  what  he  said  about  a  male  or  female  who  went  with  him  1 

Question  objected  to  as  leading. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  court. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  witness  being  allowed  to  go 
on  in  narrative  form,  if  the  counsel  will  not  cut  it  up  by  interruptions. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  467 

"Witness.  I  remembor  his  statiiij^  that  he  at  one  time  was  tohl  in  ^Montreal 
that  he  woukl  meet  a  lady  in  New  York. 

Counsel  for  defence  again  asked  witness  to  suspend  to  enable  him  to  write 
down  what  he  had  said. 

The  Coi;rt  said  that  counsel  must  take  either  one  course  or  the  other.  They 
must  not  interrupt  the  narrative  for  this  purpose,  or  they  must  allow  the  wit- 
ness to  be  directed  by  questions  after  each  interruption. 

"Witness  proceeded — that  he  met  the  woman  in  New  York ;  he  came  on  to 
Washington  with  her;  from  AYasIiingtoii  he  started  on  the  way  to  Richniond 
with  her  and  four  or  five  others  ;  that  after  a  great  deal  of  trouble  they  man- 
aged to  cross  the  Potomac  ;  that  after  they  got  south  of  Fredericksburg  they 
were  driven  on  a  platform-car  drawn,  or  pushed,  by  negroes.  As  they  were 
drawn  along  they  saw  some  men  coming  towards  them — five  or  six  if  I  recol- 
lect right.  They  ascertained  that  these  men  were  Union  prisoners,  or  Union 
soldiers  escaped  from  southern  prisons ;  they  were,  he  said,  nearly  starved  to 
death  ;  that  this  woman  who  was  with  them  said,  "  Let's  shoot  the  damned  Yan- 
kee soldiers."  She  had  hardly  said  the  word  when  they  all  drew  their  revolvers 
and  shot  them,  and  went  right  along,  paying  no  more  attention  to  them. 

By  the  District  Attor.xey  : 
Q.  How  many  ? 
A.  Five  or  six  ;  I  could  not  say  certainly  ;  it  was  not  more  than  six. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPO.\T  : 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  they  did  with  the  dead  bodies  ? 

A.  No  ;  he  said  they  went  along. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  the  name  of  this  woman  ? 

A.  He  did,  but  I  forget  at  this  distance  of  time.  I  could  not  positively  state 
who  she  was. 

Q.  Would  you  know  the  name  if  you  were  to  hear  it  ? 

A.   I  would  not  like  to  say  now  what  name  it  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  letter  of  the  alphabet  it  commenced  with  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  AVas  the  name  Mrs.  Slater  ? 

A.  It  sounds  like  it,  but  I  would  not  be  positive  that  it  is.  The  woman's 
name  was  very  conspicuous  in  Montreal  during  the  trial  of  the  St.  Albans  raid- 
ers. 

Q.  Conspicuous  as  what? 

A.  As  one  of  those  who  went  to  Richmond  to  help  the  raiders  in  their  trial. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  to  you  about  whether  these  men  had  or  had  not  any 
arms  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  irrelevant  and  as  leading. 

Objection  overruled. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  to  be  noted. 

(4.  What  further  did  he  say  about  the  condition  of  these  men  ? 

A.  I  understood  him  to  say  they  were  in  a  very  miserable  way  ;  that  they 
had  been  obliged  to  hide  themselves  in  swamps  and  other  places,  and  1  under- 
stood him  to  say  they  were  almost  dead. 

Q,.   What  as  to  arms  1 

A.  1  do  not  recollect  whether  he  said  anything  as  to  wliether  they  were 
armed  or  not. 

(4.  Was  there  anything  said  about  money  in  this  connection? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  What  Avas  that  ? 

A.  He  told  me  he  had  received  money  in  Richmond  from  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Benjamin,  several  times. 


468  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  much  1 

A.  I  remember  two  amouuts,  830,000  and  870,000.  I  do  not  remember  at 
what  times  he  received  them  ;  he  stated  particular  times.  I  remember  these 
amounts. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  the  dates  when  he  reached  Montreal  from  Richmond  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  did.  All  I  remember  about  that  is  that  he  was 
in  Richmond  a  few  days  previous  to  its  fall ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  week  imme- 
diately previous. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  any  account  of  crossing  the  Potomac  at  that  time  ?  If  so, 
state  it. 

Mr.  Bradlky  desired  it  to  be  noted  that  all  this  testimony  came  in  subject  to 
his  exception. 

"\VeTi\ess,  continuing.  I  remember  his  stating  one  day  that  there  were  several 
of  them  crossing  the  Potomac  in  a  boat — it  was  in  the  evening,  I  believe — when 
they  were  perceived  by  a  gunboat  and  hailed.  They  were  ordered  to  surrender, 
or  else  they  would  be  fired  upon.  They  immediately  said  they  would  surrender. 
The  gunboat  sent  a  small  boat  to  them  ;  that  they  waited  until  the.gunboat  came 
immediately  alongside  of  them,  then  fired  right  into  them,  and  escaped  to  the 
shore. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  gunboat  fired  into  them, or  they  fired  into  the  gunboat  1 

Witness  said  he  would  tell  the  counsel,  and,  if  he  was  not  deaf,  he  could 
Lear,  and  repeated  his  answer,  adding  that  Mr.  Merrick  had  insulted  witnesses 
the  other  day,  and  that  it  was  the  act  of  a  coward  and  sneak. 

The  Court  cautioned  the  witness  that  such  language  was  not  becoming,  but 
also  remarked  that  it  was  not  becoming  in  counsel  to  try  to  worry  witnesses  into 
a  bad  temper. 

Witness  stated  that  Mr.  Merrick  had  remarked  the  other  day  that  all  the  wit- 
nesses in  the  adjoining  room  ought  to  goto  the  penitentiary,  or  something  to  that 
effect ;  that  he  was  just  as  good  as  Mr.  Merrick. 

Q.  What  do  you  know  about  a  telegraph  communication  down  there  discov- 
ered by  these  parties  ? 

A.  I  remember  one  day  he  said  that  he  v.'as  with  a  regiment  of  rebel  soldiers 
one  evening;  that  after  sunset  he  and  some  others  went  into  an  orchard  or  gar- 
den, close  by,  to  pick  some  fruit ;  that  whi'e  sitting  on  the  ground  tliey  heard  the 
ticking  of  a  telegraph,  or  what  they  supposed  to  be  a  telegraphic  machine  ;  that 
they  went  down  to  the  headquarters  of  the  regiment  and  reported  the  fact ;  that 
the  party  in  command  ordered  some  soldiers  to  go  to  the  house  connected  with 
the  orchard  and  search  it ;  that  in  the  garret  of  the  house,  in  a  closet,  they  found 
a  Union  soldier  ;  that  they  found  he  had  an  underground  wire,  and  was  working 
a  telegraph.     They  took  him  down,  and  shot  him  or  hung  him,  1  forget  which. 

Q.  In  passing  between  Richmond,  Washington,  and  Montreal,  did  he  state 
anything  of  the  names  he  took  ?  and  if  so,  give  them. 

A.  I  remember  he  travelled  under  the  names  of  Harrison,  Sherman,  and  some 
others  I  forget. 

Q.  You  have  named  two  specific  sums.  What  fui'ther  did  he  say  in  regard 
to  his  having  received  money  from  Richmond  ? 

A.  He  told  me  so  many  things  that  I  cannot  recollect,  at  this  distance  of  time, 
everything  he  said.  All  I  can  eay  is  he  repeatedly  told  me  he  received  money 
from  Richmond.  The  only  two  sums  I  remember  of  are  thirty  thousand  and 
seventy  thousand  dollars. 

Q.  Will  you  give  us  his  conversation  in  reference  to  landing  in  England,  as 
connected  with  our  government  in  any  way  ? 

A.  I  remember  the  last  day  he  was  on  board,  which  was  Sunday  afternoon, 
after  tea  he  came  to  me  on  the  quarter-deck,  and  said  he  wished  to  speak  to  me. 
I  went  with  him  behind  the  wheel-house.  He  repeated  to  me  many  things  he 
had  already  said  before,  parts  of  which  I  have  stated  here,  and  the  others  I  do 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT.  469 

not  recollect.  After  talking  a  long  time  in  t\m  way,  lie  sairl,  pointing  to  the 
coast  of  Ireland,  in  sight  of  which  we  were  then  sailing,  "  Here  is  a  foreign 
land  at  last.  Then,"  said  he,  "  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  retnrn  to  my  country 
in  two  years.  I  hope  to  God,"  at  the  same  time  holding  a  revolver  in  his  hand, 
"  I  shall  live  to  see  the  time  when  I  can  serve  Andrew  Johnson  as  Abraham 
Lincoln  has  been  served." 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  what  he  would  do  if  an  English  officer,  at  the 
request  of  the  United  States,  should  take  him  in  England? 

A.  One  day,  in  talking  of  the  mere  possibility  of  his  being  arrested  in  Eng- 
land, he  said  he  would  shoot  the  first  officer  who  would  lay  his  hand  on  him.  1 
remarked  tliat  if  he  did  so,  he  would  be  shown  very  little  leniency  in  P^ngland. 
Said  he,  "  I  know  it,  and  for  that  very  reason  I  would  do  it,  because  1  would 
rather  be  hung  by  an  English  hangman  than  by  a  Yankee  one,  for  I  know  very 
well  if  I  go  back  to  the  United  States  I  shall  swing." 

The  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  at  ten  a.  m. 

Tuesday,  JuJij  2,  1867. 

The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock. 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  your  honor  please,  before  wc  proceed  with  the  trial  of  this 
case,  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  an  incident  which  occurred 
just  bc^fore  the  adjournment  yesterday,  and  to  ask  that  the  notes  of  the  reporter 
may  be  read.  Your  honor  was  very  much  occupied  at  the  time,  and  I  desire 
that  the  record  may  be  read  in  order  that  you  may  see  what  passed,  and  what 
led  to  the  attack  made  by  the  witness  upon  the  stand  upon  the  counsel  with 
whom  1  am  associated.  Your  honor,  without  having  heard  what  passed  at  that 
time,  if  not  in  precise  words  yet  in  substance,  censured  the  counsel  to  whom 
these  observations  were  addressed.  I  think,  in  looking  at  it,  your  honor  will  see 
that  there  was  no  provocation  given  ;  and  that  if  there  was,  it  is  due  to  the  dig- 
nity of  this  cnurt,  and  to  the  protection  of  the  members  of  the  bar,  to  which  they 
are  entitled  at  the  hands  of  the  court,  that  some  notice  should  be  taken  of  what 
then  passed. 

So  much  of  the  report  of  yesterday's  proceedings  as  related  to  the  matter  re- 
ferred to  by  Mr.  Bradley  was  then  read;  after  which, 

The  Court  said  :  I  did  not  hear  what  was  said  yesterday  by  the  witness  in 
regard  to  the  gunboats  for  the  reason  that  I  was  at  the  time  occupied  in  preparing 
some  passes  for  a  friend.  When  my  attention  was  called  to  the  remark  made 
\ise  of  by  the  witness  towards  the  counsel,  I  was  under  the  impression  tliat  he 
had  been  provoked  to  it  by  something  that  had  been  said  by  the  counsel.  I 
cannot,  however,  ))erceive  in  the  record  which  has  been  read  anything  which 
ought  to  have  called  forth,  or  which  justifies,  the  expression  of  the  wilness.  I 
will  say  now  to  the  witness,  that  although  Mr.  Merrick  did  say  a  few  days  ago, 
in  regard  to  the  witnesses  who  were  in  the  adjoining  room,  (which  Mr.  Bradley 
had  called  a  penitentiary,)  that  they  (the  witnesses)  would  soon  be  in  another 
penitentiary,  or  words  to  that  effect,  it  is  not  the  privilege  of  a  witness  to  take 
exception  in  the  way  he  did  to  any  remarks  made  in  the  court-room,  lie  may 
appeal  to  the  court  to  protect  him  if  he  is  aggrieved.  [Turning  to  the  witness.] 
You  must  not  hereafter,  in  your  examination,  make  use  of  any  expres-ions 
towards  counsel  which  are  at  all  insulting  in  their  character,  however  much  you 
may  feel  yourself  aggrieved  by  remarks  which  they  may  have  made  in  n-ference 
to  witnesses  generally,  or  in  reference  to  yourself  before  your  examination.  lu 
this  connection  it  may  not  be  improper  to  observe  that  I  have  never,  in  all  my 
judici;il  experience,  seen  a  case  in  which  there  has  been  so  much  trouble  with 
regard  to  the  examination  of  witnesses,  and  so  much  bitterness  of  feeling  dis- 
played. It  may  be  all  right,  but  I  confess  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  so; 
1  cannot,  of  course,  enter  into  the  feelings  of  counsel,  and  it  is  possible  they  may 
feel  themselves  aggrieved,  and  therefore  regard  themselves  as  justified  in  ex- 


470  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

LiLiting  this  8i)irit.  I  will  say,  further,  that  I  have  never  seen  witnesses  cross- 
examincd  with  so  much  asperity  as  I  have  in  the  case  now  pending.  It  does 
not  appear  to  me,  therefore,  as  at  all  strange  that  witnesses  should  be  worried 
into  such  remarks  as  this  witness  has  uttered,  especially  when  intimations  are  pub- 
licly thrown  out  hy  counsel  as  to  their  fitness  for  the  penitentiary,  and  that,  too, 
when  some  of  the  most  respectable  persons  in  the  land,  such,  for  instance,  as  Gen- 
eral Grant  and  Assistant  Secretary  Seward,  are  among  the  number.  And  not 
even  Was  the  effect  of  the  n  mark  allowed  to  stop  with  this  intimation,  but  when 
attention  was  called  to  it  by  the  district  attorney,  in  the  hope,  I  presume,  that 
it  would  be  recalled,  it  was  repeated,  and  with  the  additional  observation  that 
the  propriety  of  the  remark  could  be  shown.  When  such  things  occur  it  is  not 
at  all  surprising  that  witnesses  should  come  here  prepared  to  avenge  themselves 
by  making  insulting  replies  to  counsel.  1  deeply  deplore  it,  and  will  endeavor, 
by  most  carefully  observing  all  that  transpires,  to  prevent  a  similar  recurrence 
on  the  part  of  cither  counsel  or  witness  ;  but,  however  watchful  the  court  may 
be,  such  things  will  occasionally  break  forth  at  times  and  under  circumstances 
when,  from  not  expecting,  it  is  impossible  for  the  court  to  check  them.  [Again 
addressing  himself  to  the  witness  J  Dr.  Mc^Millan,  you  are  highly  reprehensible 
for  having  made  any  such  remark  as  that  to  which  exception  has  been  taken. 
It  was  altogether  out  of  place.  If  you  felt  yourself  aggrieved  by  any  re- 
mark, you  should  have  called  on  the  court  for  protection.  You  will  now 
proceed  to  give  your  evidence,  and  in  a  manner  respectful  to  the  counsel. 
If  the  counsel  on  either  side  shall  treat  you  with  what  you  conceive  to  be  dis- 
respect, you  will  appeal  to  the  court,  and  the  court  will  intervene  for  your  pro- 
tection. I  would,  however,  suggest  to  gentlemen  on  both  sides  that  in  the  exami- 
nation of  witnesses,  if  they  will  consult  Quintilian  and  Allison  in  regard  to  their 
duty  in  this  respect,  (and  no  doubt  they  have  read  the  remarks  of  both  of  these 
authors  on  the  subject,)  they  will  find  that  those  writers  say  nothing  is  to  be  gained 
by  a  bitterness  of  manner  toward  witnesses  either  on  examination  in  chief  or  cross- 
examination,  but  that  everything  may  possibly  be  gained  by  kindness  and  con- 
ciliatory manners ;  and  I  think  it  would  be  a  decided  improvement  in  this  case 
if  their  suggestions  were  accepted.  In  the  course  of  the  five  years  that  I  was 
engaged  in  prosecuting  criminal  cases,  I  do  not  recollect  ever  to  have  had  an 
unkind  word  with  a  witness  on  the  one  side  or  the  other.and  never  in  a  civil  case 
except  upon  one  occasion,  when  a  witness  of  my  own  turned  against  me.  'I  hen 
I  was  led  away  by  a  natural  quickness  of  temper.  I  advise  that  we  should  all, 
to  the  best  of  our  ability,  endeavor  to  control  our  tempers  in  conducting  this 
case  ;  and  then  there  will  be  no  fear  of  a  repetition  of  the  unpleasant  occu.ireuces 
that  have  happened  during  its  progress. 

Mr.  JMerkkk.  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me  to  say,  after  what  has  fallen  from 
the  court,  especially  as  your  honor  seems  to  have  the  impression  that  1  intended 
my  remark  to  ajjply  to  all  the  witnesses,  including  Secretary  Seward  and  Gene- 
ral Grant,  that  while  your  honor  misunderstood  me  in  this  regard,  I  do  not  believe 
I  was  misunderstood  by  some  others  outside  in  supposing  I  intended  to  embrace 
all  the  witnesses  in  that  remark.  I  will  here  say  that  I  have  the  greatest  re- 
spect for  General  Grant  and  Mr.  Seward,  and  I  apprehend  that  among  the  wit- 
nesses in  the  case  it  is  perfectly  well  understood  to  whom  the  remark  referred, 
and  to  whom  it  did  not  refer.  I  apprehend  that  no  sane  man  can  suppose  that 
I  meant  any  such  reference  to  General  Grant,  Mr.  Seward,  and  Mrs.  Seward, 
and  that  class  of  witnesses,  I  will  only  say  in  conclusion,  that  I  think,  with- 
out any  further  explanation,  or  more  direct  pointing  of  the  remark  at  present,  it 
is  perfectly  well  understood  among  witnesses  to  whom  the  remark  referred. 

The  CoLRT.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  understood  or  not.  I  cannot  under- 
stand it,  because  I  am  bound  not  to  know  the  witnesses,  either  as  regards  their  own 
private  character,  or  the  character  of  their  testimony,  and  I  enter  into  the  trial  of 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRA.TT.  471 

tliisca.«e  knowing  nothing,  as  it  were,  about  eitlier,  scarcely  ever  Inning  glanced 
at  the  testimony,  and,  of  cour.<e,  therefore  I  cannot  enter  into  tlie  feeling;?  of  coun- 
sel on  the  subject.  I  do  not  know  to  what  witnesses  these  remarks  may  be  directed, 
but  this  I  do  know,  that  there  are  certain  legal  methods  pointed  out  in  the  text 
bof)ks  of  the  law  by  which  we  are  to  be  guided  in  undertaking  to  discredit  the 
testimony  of  witnesses.  One  method  is  the  discrediting  the  witness  by  himself; 
by  his  own  contradictions,  and  his  mode  and  manner  of  testifying.  xVnother  is 
by  proving  the  witness  to  be  utterly  devoid  of  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity, 
and  not  to  be  believed  on  his  oath.  Another  is  by  contradicting  him  by  the 
conflicting  testimony  of  other  witnesses.  These  are  the  legal  modes  that  are 
pointed  out  in  the  law-books,  and  any  side  remarks  that  are  made  by  way  of 
prejudicing  a  jury — any  acting  in  the  case — the  casting  of  any  sinister  looks  at 
the  jury,  are  departures  from  the  rules  laid  down.  The  examination  of  a  witness 
ought  to  be  conducted  by  the  witness  standing  up  and  the  counsel  standing  up, 
and  looking  each  other  in  the  face,  without  the  counsel  directing  his  remarks  to 
the  jury  by  turning  towards  them  instead  of  turning  toward  the  witness.  That 
is  the  proper  way  to  conduct  either  an  examination  in  chief  or  a  cross-examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  I  deem  it  proper  that  I  should  further  say,  your  honor,  that 
the  remarks  of  my  learned  brother,  calling  your  attention  to  this  matter,  were, 
of  course,  suggested  by  himself,  and  not  in  the  slightest  degree  at  my  instance. 
I  did  not  care  at  all  for  what  transpired  yesterda}',  in  so  far  as  this  witness  is 
concerned  ;  but,  as  a  member  of  the  bar,  1  did  feel  that  the  dignity  of  the  court 
was  somewhat  infringed  upon  and  somewhat  humiliated.  In  that  respect  1  re- 
gretted it,  for  the  witness  could  not  insult  me;  the  insulting  language  would 
only  reflect  upon  the  dignity  of  the  tribunal  before  which  I  was  practicing.  I 
deem  it  proper  to  say  further  that  what  I  have  just  now  stated  with  regard  to 
the  pointing  of  my  remark  was  prompted  by  your  honor's  apparent  misappre- 
hension of  the  application  of  that  remark  and  not  by  anything  that  was  said  by 
the  witness.  I  think  your  honor  will  see  the  meaning  of  what  I  say  in  the 
course  of  the  progress  of  the  trial. 

Lewis  J.  A.  SIcMilla.v — ExaTiiuation  resnmed. 
By  Mr.  Pikrrepo,\t: 

Q.  I  will  call  your  attention  to  the  early  part  of  April — the  month  of  the  as- 
sassination of  the  President — and  ask  you  what  the  prisoner  told  you  on  the 
subject  of  despatches  at  that  time  ? 

A.  All  I  remember  about  this  is  that  he  said,  at  the  beginning  of  the  week 
during  which  the  assassination  took  place,  that  he  was  in  Montreal;  that  he  had 
arrived  there  within  a  iew  days,  from  Richmond,  with  despatches. 

Q.  Did  he  characterize  the  despatches  1 

A.  I  remember  that  he  said  they  were  i'nportant  despatches  for  ^[ontrcal, 
which  had  been  intrusted  to  him  in  Richmond.  What  they  were  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  at  all. 

Q.  Did  he  say  what  day  of  the  week  of  the  assassination  he  was  there? 

A.  He  told  me  that  hu  was  there  at  the  beginning  of  the  week  of  the  assassi- 
nation. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  received  and  from  whom  he  received  it  ? 

A.  He  stated  that  he  received  a  letter  from  John  Wilkes  Booth,  dated  "  New 
York,"  ordering  him  immediately  to  Washington,  as  it  had  been  necessary  to 
change  their  plans,  and  to  act  promptly. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  did  ? 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  started  immediately  on  the  receipt  of  the  letter. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  that  he  did  on  his  way  to  Washington  ;  and  if  so, 
what  ? 

A.  The  first  place  he  named  was  Elmira,  in  the  State  of  New  York. 


472  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  he  state  anything  that  he  did  there  1 

A.  He  told  me  that  he  telegraphed  to  John  Wilkes  Booth,  in  New  York. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  learned  ? 

A.  He  told  me  that  an  answer  came  back  that  John  Wilkes  Booth  had  already- 
started  for  Washington. 

Q,  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  in  relation  to  his  own  escape? 
A.  He  said  that  he  arrived  at  St.  Albans  one  morning  a  few  days  after  the 
assassination. 

Q.  What,  if  anything,  did  he  tell  you  occurred  in  St.  Albans  that  morning, 
a  few  days  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  He  said  that  the  train  was  delayed  there  some  time,  and  that  he  took  ad- 
vantige  of  it  to  go  into  the  village  to  get  his  breakfast;  that  while  sitting  at 
the  public  table  with  several  other  persons  he  saw  that  there  was  a  great  deal 
of  talking  and  excitement  among  those  who  were  at  the  same  table  with  him. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  said  ? 

A.  He  asked  his  neighbor  what  the  talk  was  about.  His  neighbor  said  to 
him,  "  Wli}',  don't  you  know  that  Mr.  Lincoln  has  been  assassinated  ?"  The 
prisoner  replied,  "Oh,  the  story  is  too  good  to  be  true." 

Q.  Did  he  describe  the  man  with  whom  he  held  this  conversation? 
A.  I  understood  him  to  say  an  old  man  ;   that  is  all  I  remember. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  the  man  did  1 

A.  The  man  M'hom  he  addressed  then  handed  him  a  newspaper.     He  opened 
the  paper,  and  said  that  among  the  names  of  the  assassins  he  saw  his  own. 
Q.  What  did  he  say  he  then  did  ? 

A.  He  said  that  it  so  unnerved  him  at  the  moment  that  he  dropped  the  paper 
in  his  seat,  and  that  that  was  the  last  of  his  breakfast  for  that  day. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  about  a  handkerchief  as  he  was  going  out  from 
the  breakfast  room  ? 

A.  He  said  he  got  up  from  the  breakfast  table,  walked  into  another  room, 
and  just  as  he  was  about  passing  from  the  room  he  heard  a  party  rushing  in, 
stating  that  Surratt  must  have  passed,  oi  must  then  be  in  St.  Albans,  as  so  and 
so  had  found  his  pocket-handkerchief  in  the  street  with  his  name  on  it. 
Q.  What  tht'U  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  that  at  the  moment,  without  thinking,  he  clapped  his  hands  on  a 
courier  book,  in  the  outside  pocket  of  which  he  was  always  in  the  habit  of 
carrying  his  pocket-handkerchief,  and  that  he  found  out  that'  he  had  really  lost 
his  pocket-hiindkerchief. 

Q.  And  then  what  did  he  tell  you? 

A.  He  said  that  then  he  thought  it  was  time  for  him  to  make  himself  scarce. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  in  what  way  he  then  made  himself  scarce? 
A.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  he  made  for  Canada  as  soon  as  possible. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  to  whose  house  he  went  ? 

A.  I  remember  that  he  told  me  that  he  went  to  one  Mr.  Porterfield's,  in 
Montreal. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  who  he  was  ? 

A.  He  told  me  Mr.  Porterfield  was  a  confederate  agent,  in  Montreal. 
Q.   What  did  he  tell  you  as  occurring  there  to  himself  ? 

A.  He  said  he  staid  there  a  short  time;   how  long  I  could  not  say;  until, 
however,  they  found  out  that  detectives  were  beginning  to  suspect  that  he  was 
in  that  house,  and  it  was  found  necessary  for  him  to  leave  there. 
Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  he  left  there? 

A.  He  said  that  one  evening  two  carriages  were  driven  in  front  of  Mr.  Por- 
terfield's house,  and  that  he,  and  anotlier  party  dressed  nearly  as  he  was,  came 
out  at  the  same  time,  and  got  one  into  one  carriage,  and  the  other  in  the  other, 
and  drove  ofi',  one  carriage  driving  one  way  and  the  other  in  the  other. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  473 

Q.  Will  yon  tell  us  how  he  told  you  he  was  dressed,  and  the  one  who  was 
dressed  just  like  him? 

A.  I  remember  his  telling  me  that  he  wore  at  that  time — I  cannot  tell  whether 
lie  had  on  the  same  dress  that  night — what  was  known  in  Canada  as  an  Oxford 
jacket. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  it  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  is  what  is  called  in  this  country  a  Garibaldi  jacket. 

Mr.  Pjerrepont.  Have  you  the  one  in  court  that  you  produced  here  the 
other  day  ? 

Mr.  Bradley    No,  sir;  it  is  not  here. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  may  describe  it.  The  jury  will  remember  whether 
it  resembles  the  other. 

A.  It  was  a  jacket  with  a  short  skirt  and  a  belt  around  it. 

Q.  He  told  you  they  were  both  dressed  alike  iu  that  costume  ? 

A.  He  said  they  were  both  dressed  as  near  alike  as  could  be. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  the  two  carriages  drove  to? 

A.  He  told  me  he  was  taken  to  the  foot  of  the  island  of  Montreal,  about  ten 
miles,  I  should  say,  from  Montreal. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  about  the  river? 

A.  The  man  there  had  been  engaged  previously  to  take  him  across,  and  did 
so  in  a  small  canoe  during  the  night.  He  took  him  across  to  the  southern  shore 
of  the  St.  Lawrence. 

Q.  Did  he  state  what  sort  of  a  person  took  him  across  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  who  guided  him  after  he  got  across  ? 

A.  A  young  lady  guided  him  across  the  country  to  a  village  on  the  Grand 
Trunk  railroad  called  San  Leben. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  long  he  staid  there  ? 

A.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  he  staid  there  some  two  or  three  weeks. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  in  whose  house  he  staid? 

A.  He  said  he  staid  in  the  house  of  a  priest  named  Charles  Boucher. 

Q.  Did  he  state  any  circumstance  connected  with  his  leaving  that  house; 
when  he  left,  &c.? 

A.  In  describing  the  place  he  said  that  between  the  bed-room  and  the  sitting- 
room  there  was  a  hole  cut  in  the  partition  to  put  a  stove  in ;  that  under  the 
stove  there  was  a  vacant  space  about  six  or  eight  inches  high  ;  that  one  day 
while  the  priest  was  absent  he  was  lying  on  the  sofa  in  his  bed-room,  when  one 
of  the  female  servants,  desirous  of  knowing  who  was  in  the  priest's  house,  put 
her  head  under  the  stove  so  as  to  see  in  the  room.  He  saw  her  face  as  it  came 
under  the  stove,  and  kind  of  scared  her  away  by  jumping  suddenly  at  her. 

Q.  W^hat  occurred  after  that  ? 

A.  The  story  was  immediately  circulated  around  the  village  that  the  priest 
had  a  woman  in  his  bed-room  hiding.  Then  the  priest  told  him  that  he  could 
keep  him  no  longer;  that  he  must  find  other  quarters. 

Q.  What  then  did  he  do  ? 

A.  He  came  back  to  ^[ontreal. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  to  whom  he  went  ? 

A.  I  understood  him  to  say  that  he  went  to  the  man  who  introduced  him  to 
the  priest. 

Q    Will  yon  state  what  he  related  to  you  in  relation  to  his  secretion  there? 

A.  He  told  me  that  for  four  months  and  a  half  or  so  he  was  secreted  in  a 
dark  room,  from  which  he  never  came  out  except  a  few  times,  when  he  would 
go  out  late  at  night  and  take  a  walk. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  the  physical  condition  that  he  was  in  when  you  first  saw 
him  on  the  boat  ? 
31 


474  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

A.  When  I  first  met  him  tlie  prisoner  was  very  thin,  and  looked  very  thin 
nervous,  and  careworn. 

Q.  What  was  his  conduct  on  the  ship  in  respect  to  being  quiet  or  otherwise  ? 
Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  the  question  as  irrelevant.     Objection  overruled. 
Exception  reserved. 

A.  His  general  conduct  was  gentle.  He  would,  hoAvever,  show  signs  of  ner- 
vousness whenever  any  one  came  suddenly  behind  him.  He  Avould  turn  round 
and  look  about  as  if  he  expected  some  one  to  come  upon  him  at  any  moment. 

Mr.  PfERREPONT.  I  will  go  down  to  the  last  Sunday  night  before  landing. 
When  was  it  ? 

A.  I  know  he  landed  between  twelve  o'clock  on  Sunday  night  and  one  o'clock 
on  Monday  morning. 

Q.  That  Sunday  before  you  came  to  land — will  you  state  what  occurred  after 
day,  and  the  place  on,  the  ship  where  it  occurred  1 

A.  T  had  left  the  prisoner  after  the  conversation  that  I  related  yesterday ;  I 
should  say  it  was  about  half  past  nine  o'clock  when  I  left  him.  About  half 
past  eleven  or  twelve  o'clock  I  was  called  out  of  the  room  of  one  of  my  brother 
officers  by  one  of  my  stewards,  who  stated  that  a  passenger  wanted  to  see  me 
outside.  I  came  out  and  found  the  prisoner  standing  in  what  is  called  on  steam- 
ers or  ships  the  after-square.  He  was  already  dressed  ready  to  go  ashore.  He 
had  previously  told  me  that  he  had  intended  to  come  down  with  us  to  Liverpool. 
Q.  Had  he  asked  any  advice  of  you  previously;  and  if  so,  what? 
A.  He  asked  me  what  1  would  advise  him  to  do — to  land  in  Ireland,  or  come 
down  to  Liverpool  and  land  there.  I  told  him  I  would  give  him  no  advice 
whatever  ;  that  he  might  just  do  what  he  pleased,  and  land  where  he  pleased. 
He  then  said,  "  Well,  I  believe  I  will  go  down  to  Liverpool  with  you."  I  was  a 
little  surprised,  therefore,  when  I  came  into  the  after-square,  and  saw  him  all  ready 
to  leave.  I  said,  "  Hallo  !  are  you  going  ashore  1  I  thought  you  were  coming 
down  to  Liverpool."  He  says,  "  I  have  thoug^ht  over  the  matter,  and  I  believe 
it  is  better  for  me  to  get  out  here.  It  is  now  dai'k,  and  there  is  less  chance  of 
being  seen."  Says  I,  "You  have  been  telling  me  a  great  many  things  about 
what  you  have  done  and  seen,  and  I  believe  the  name  under  which  you  travel 
IS  not  your  name.  Will  you  please  give  me  your  own  name  ?"  He  looked 
about  to  see  if  there  was  any  one  near,  and  then  whispered  in  my  ear,  "  My 
name  is  Surratt." 

Q.  How  long  after  that  did  he  go  ashore  1 
A.  Within  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes. 

Q.  Now  describe  what  occurred  before  his  going  ashore,  between  you,  him, 
and  others. 

A.  He  then  asked  me  if  he  could  not  get  some  liquor  to  drink ;   that  the  bar 
was  closed,  and  he  wished  to  have  something  to  drink  before  going  ashore      I 
told  him  that  I  would  see  the  barkeeper,  and  I  had  no  doubt  but  he  could  get 
some.     I  called  the  barkeeper,  and  he  came  and  opened  the  bar-room,  and  the 
three  of  us  went  in — the  prisoner,  the  barkeeper,  and  myself. 
Q.  What  was  his  condition  when  he  went  to  the  door  ? 
A.  He  was  nervous ;  he  seemed  to  be  very  much  excited. 
Q.  What  did  he  do  when  he  went  to  the  bar  ? 

A.  He  called  for  some  brandy,  and  the  three  of  us  each  had  a  glass. 
Q.  Will  you  tell  us  exactly  what  occurred  about  that  brandy  ? 
A    In  England  and  on  board  ship  it  is  the  habit  to  help  any  one  with  the 
liquor  they  may  want.     They  never  place  the  decanter  before  you  and  tell  you 
to  help  yourself;  but  in  this  instance  the  barkeeper  placed  the  bottle  on  the 
table,  and  told  us  to  help  ourselves.     The  prisoner  took  the  bottle  and  poured 
out  a  large  half-tumbler  full  of  raw  brandy. 
Q.  What  next  did  he  do  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  475 

A.  In  a  few  minutes  I  asked  him  if  he  would  not  drink  with  me.  He  said, 
"  Yes,"  and  we  took  another  about  the  same. 

Q.  What  next  ? 

A.  Within  a  few  minutes  afterwards  again,  the  barkeeper  says,  "  It  is  my 
turn  to  treat  now,"  and  asked  us  to  take  a  third  glass,  and  we  did  so 

Q.  Did  he  take  the  third  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  then  did  he  do  ? 

A.  I  saw  he  was  becoming  rather  the  worse  for  his  drinking. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  I 

A.  By  that  time  we  had  arrived  at  the  phice  where  the  mails  and  passengers 
are  taken  off  from  the  steamships.  I  saw  the  condition  in  which  the  prisoner 
was,  and  I  told  the  chief  officer  at  the  navy  yard  it  was  dark  and  I  was  afraid 
that  the  prisoner  might  fall  overboard.  I  said  to  the  chief  officer  at  the  gang- 
way, "  Will  you  mind  to  take  this  officer  by  the  arm  and  lead  him  down  ?" 

Q.  Did  he  do  so  1 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  then  with  your  ship  1 

A.  Turned  down  and  went  to  Liverpool. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  the  prisoner  1 

A.  I  next  saw  the  prisoner  on  the  Wednesday  following. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  Birkenhead,  at  my  own  boarding-house.  Birkenhead  is  right  opposite 
the  city  of  Liverpool. 

Q.  Do  you  know  from  himself  where  he  went  to  for  concealment,  or  for  any 
other  purpose,  in  Liverpool  ? 

A.  When  he  came  to  my  house  that  evening  he  asked  me  if  I  would  not  go 
with  him  over  to  Liverpool  to  find  a  house  to  which  he  had  been  directed  and 
recommended. 

Q.  Won't  you  tell  the  jury  where  your  house  was  in  reference  to  Liverpool  ? 

A.  It  is  just  across  from  Liverpool.  The  river  is  about  three  quarters  of  a 
mile  wide.  The  city  of  Birkenhead  is  on  the  one  side,  and  the  city  of  Liver- 
pool on  the  other.  I  told  him  I  would  go,  and  we  came  across  to  go  to  Liver- 
pool, and  I  went  part  of  the  way  to  this  house  with  him.  Then  I  called  a  cab 
and  told  the  cab  where  to  drive  him.  He  went  away ;  that  was  the  last  I  saw 
of  him  that  night. 

Q  Did  he  tell  you  of  any  former  expedition  in  which  they  had  been  engaged 
before  the  assassination,  which  did  not  succeed  ? 

A.  I  remember  of  his  stating  one  day  that  he,  Booth,  and  others  had  planned 
the  abduction  of  the  President. 

Q.  Did  he  give  you  the  date  of  when  they  found  any  failure  of  it  ? 

A.  He  did  not.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  ever  told  me  any  date.  If  he 
did,  I  have  forgotten  it.  He  said,  in  reference  to  the  abduction,  that  after  awhile 
they  found  out  they  could  not  carry  on  their  plan,  and  they  had  to  abandon  it. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  You  cannot  state  at  what  time  he  said  they  found  they  could  not  carry  out 
their  plan  for  the  abduction  of  the  President  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  recollect  of  any  date.  All  the  remembrance  I  have  o£ 
dates  is  on  two  occasions.  One  is  that  he  was  in  Richmond  the  week  previous 
to  its  fall,  and  the  other  that  he  was  in  Montreal  at  the  beginning  of  the  week 
of  the  assassination. 

Q.  Can  you  recall  any  circumstance  to  your  mind  that  will  enable  you  to  fix 
the  date  of  the  failure  of  that  plan  1 

A.  I  cannot. 


476  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

Q.  Can  you  say  whetlier  that  plan  of  the  abduction  failed  before  the  fall  of 
Richmond  1 

A.  I  cannot  say.     If  you  desire  my  opinion  I  will  give  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  I  do  not  want  your  opinion,  but  the  facts. 

Q,  Did  he  tell  you  what  change  of  plan  this  letter  of  Booth's  referred  to, 
when  he  was  directed  in  it  to  come  immediately  to  Washington  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  In  all  these  various  disclosures  which  you  say  he  made,  he  never  told 
you  anything  of  his  having  been  to  Washington,  or  related  to  yon  any  incidents 
connected  with  the  assassination  in  Washington  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  was  in  the  telegram  he  sent  to  Booth  from  Elraira  ? 

A .  Ko,  sir  ;  only  I  understood  him  to  say  that  he  telegi'aphed  to  find  out 
whether  Booth  had  arrived  in  Washington. 

Q.  You  have  made  an  affidavit  on  this  subject  before? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  that  affidavit  made  ? 

A.  In  Liverpool,  on  the  25th  or  26th  of  September,  1865  ;  I  am  not  positive 
as  to  the  time. 

Q.  What  day  did  you  reach  Liverpool? 

A.  Monday  evening. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  month  ? 

A.  We  sailed  on  the  16th  ;  I  should  say  it  was  on  the  26th. 

Q.  Then  the  affidavit  was  made  on  the  next  day  after  you  landed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  Tuesday. 

Q.  You  landed  on  Monday  night,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  affidavit  did  you  state  as  follows  :  "  That  Snn-aU  had  said  to  you 
that  he  had  been  concerned  in  a  plan  for  carrying  off  President  Lincoln  irona 
Washington,  which  was  concocted  entirely  by  John  Wilkes  Booth  and  himself?" 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Mr.  Merrjck  (continuing.)  "  That  he  came  to  Canada  just  before  tbe  assas- 
sination of  President  Lincoln  took  place,  and  while  in  Canada  received  a  letter 
from  Booth,  saying  that  it  was  necessary  to  change  their  plans,  and  request- 
ing him  to  come  to  Washington  immediately  1" 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  said  so. 

Q.  He  told  all  that  in  the  same  connexion  as  stated  in  your  affidavits? 

A.  I  must  give  an  explanation  here.  Those  conversations  that  I  have  related 
took  place  at  different  times  during  a  period  of  nine  days.  He  would  let  me  into 
one  thing  one  day,  and  into  another  thing  another  day.  I  cannot  say  that  they 
all  followed  each  other  in  due  course.  I  cannot  remember  at  this  dis-tance  of 
time.  He  told  me  all  that  I  have  stated,  but  1  cannot  say  as  regards  the  order. 
With  regard  to  the  affidavit  of  which  yon  have  read  a  portion,  I  -will  say  this, 
that  I  went  to  Mr.  Wildings,  United  States  vice-consul  in  Liverpool,  and  told 
him  that  I  had  some  important  matter  to  divulge  to  him.  He  sat  down  in  his 
office  and  took  down  my  deposition,  as  you  say,  cnrrente  calamo,  not  rtrhatim, 
but,  substantially,  just  as  I  spoke.  He  never  interrupted  me  at  all.  He  theii 
handed  me  the  paper  and  asked  me  if  I  wou)d  swear  to  it.  1  said  to  him,  all 
the  facts  that  the  prisoner  revealed  are  not  contained  in  thJs  deposition.  He 
said,  "  It  is  immaterial  ;  this  will  do  for  the  present." 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  him  the  fact  that  I  have  read  as  it  is  written  ? 

A.  I  stated  to  him  what  I  have  stated  here  ha  this  eouit,  that  he  "?ras  in 
Richmond  the  week  previous  to  the  fall  of  Richmond  ;  that  he  was  in  Montreal 
at  the  beginning  of  the  assassination  ;  and  that  there  he  received  a  letter  from 
Booth  ordering  him  here  instantly,  for  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  change  their 
plans  and  act  promptly. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  477 

Q.  Their  plans,  so  far  as  he  stated  them  to  you,  had  up  to  that  time  been 
plans  of  abduction,  had  they  not  ? 

A.  He  did  not  tell  me  what  Booth  referred  to,  and  I  did  not  ask  him. 

Q.  Have  you  never  stated  that  Surratt  told  you  that  he  first  learned  of 
the  assassination  of  the  President  in  Elmira  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.   How  many  affidavits  have  you  made  upon  this  subject  1 

A.  I  made  an  affidavit  before  Justice  Meely  in  Liverpool.  I  was  called 
here  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  last  February,  I  believe. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  the  city  attending  to  this  matter  ? 

A.  I  arrived  in  Washington  on  the  2 1st  of  January  last. 

Q.  Have  you  been  here  ever  since  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  What  have  you  been  doing  here  ? 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  How  have  you  sustained  yourself? 

A.  I  have  had  money  to  pay  my  board. 

Q.  Who  has  furnished  it  to  you  ? 

A.  I  had  it  from  the  State  Department. 

Q.  Have  you  had  anything  further  than  money  to  pay  your  board  since 
January  from  the  department  ? 

A.  Here,  within  a  few  days,  I  wanted  some  more  money,  and  I  called  on 
the  deputy  marshal  and  got  some  from  him. 

Q.  As  I  understand  you,  this  man  Surratt  was  put  in  your  charge  on  board 
of  the  steamer  at  Montreal  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  then  surgeon  of  the  Peruvian  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  leave  your  position  as  surgeon  of  the  Peruvian  1 

A.  V7e  arrived  in  Liverpool,  I  believe,  on  the  25th  or  the  26th.  On  the 
Monday  the  Peruvian's  machinery  was  disabled  ;  she  was  put  into  the  dock,  and 
I  was  transferred  to  the  steamship  Nova  Scotia,  belonging  to  the  same  company. 

Q.  How  came  you  to  leave  the  Nova  Scotia  1 

A.  I  was  transferred  to  another  ship  when  the  Nova  Scotia  was  put  aside, 
for  the  same  reason. 

Q.  To  what  ship  1 

A.  I  was  transferred  next  to  the  San  Davie.  I  made  one  round  voyage 
to  this  country  and  back,  and  then  I  was  again  transferred  to  the  Belgian.  I 
made  another  round  trip  on  her,  and  then  I  was  transferred  to  the  steamship 
Damascus,  of  the  same  company.  I  remained  on  her  till  last  September,  when 
I  left  the  company  of  my  own  accoi'd. 

Q.  Why  were  these  various  transfers  made  from  ship  to  ship  ? 

A.  If  you  will  allow  me  I  will  explain.  The  surgeons  are  not  altached  to 
any  particular  ship.  They  are  placed  there  by  the  company  until  the  ship 
they  are  on  is  disabled  or  put  up  for  some  reason,  and  then  they  are  placed  upon 
some  other  one.  The  company  never  lets  them  remain  idle,  but  transfers  them 
to  another  ship  immediately. 

Q.  That  is  the  only  reason  of  the  transfer  made  in  your  case  ? 

A.  That  is  the  only  reason. 

Q.  Was  medicine  your  profession  originally  1 

A.  Not  originally ;   I  was  in  business  for  two  years  with  my  father. 

Q.  How  old  wei-e  you  when  you  went  into  business  1 

A.  Twenty-one. 

Q.  How  old  when  you  left  it  ? 

A.  Twenty-three. 

Q.  Did  you  fail? 


478  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  house  fail  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  did  you  leave  your  occupation  as  a  merchant  ? 

A,  Because  I  did  not  like  it. 

Q.  You  commenced  the  study  of  medicine  at  twenty-three  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  did  you  commence  the  practice? 

A.  When  I  was  twenty-six. 

Q.  Where  did  you  begin  practicing  ? 

A.  I  first  tried  practicing  in  a  place  called  Lennoxville. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  practice  there  ? 

A.  Not  more  than  three  or  fonr  months. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  man  in  Lennoxville  named  James  Fuller,  a  police  officer  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  him  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  of  him  as  a  police  officer. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  him  at  all? 

A.  I  do  not  know  tie  man  at  all. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  live  in  Lennoxville? 

A.  Three  or  four  months ;  I  left  there  in  the  latter  end  of  September  or 
October,  I  cannot  say  which. 

Q.  Why  did  you  leave  Lennoxville  ? 

A.  Because  I  was  not  doing  business  enough  to  satisfy  me.  I  thought  I 
could  better  myself  by  going  somewhere  else. 

Q.  You  had  no  other  reason  for  leaving  1 

A.  No,- sir. 

Q.  You  had  no  trouble  in  Lennoxville? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  recollect  of  Mr.  Fuller  as  connected  with  any  trouble  you  had 
in  Lennoxville  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  of  any  trouble  with  which  Mr.  Fuller  had  anything  to 
do,  or  any  one  else. 

Q.  Where  did  yoii  go  to  when  you  left  Lennoxville  ? 

A.  Mansonville. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  1 

A.  From  fifteen  to  eighteen  months. 

Q.  Why  did  you  leave  there  ? 

A.  Because  I  Avas  asked  by  a  medical  friend  of  mine  to  come  and  settle  in  the 
same  place  where  he  was,  as  he  had  too  much  to  do  himself,  he  being  the  only 
physician  in  the  place,  and  his  health  was  poor. 

Q.  Where  was  that? 

A.  Waterloo. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  at  Waterloo  ? 

A.  I  remained  there  until  I  went  to  sea. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  a  man  by  the  name  of  Dutigny  ? 

A.  The  name  is  familiar  to  me,  but  I  do  not  recollect  the  man. 

Q.  Did  you  never  offer  your  services  in  any  of  these  places,  in  a  professional 
capacity,  for  the  purpose  oi'  Jcpticide  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  never  offer  them  to  Mr  Dutigny  ? 

A.  I  never  did ;  I  swear  positively  that  I  never  did. 

Q.  Tliat  was  not  part  of  your  business  ? 

A.  It  was  not. 

Q.  Axe  you  a  married  man  ?  j 

A.  I  am. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURRATT.  479 

Q.  Where  is  your  family  ? 

A.  My  wife  is  in  Washington; 

Q.  Did  she  come  on  with  you  ? 

A.  She  did. 

Q.  I  suppose  the  board  of  both  of  you  is  paid  by  the  State  Department  ? 

A.  I  pay  my  own  board. 

Q.  The  State  Department  furnishes  you  with  money  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  if  you  want  to  know  how  much  I  have  got  from  the  State  De- 
partment, I  will  tell  you. 

Q.  1  ask  you  if  the  State  Department  does  not  also  furnish  you  with  money 
for  your  wife's  board  1 

A.  My  wife  has  never  been  mentioned  in  the  case.  The  State  Department 
never  knew  my  wife  was  here,  or  anything  of  that  kind.  I  do  not  go  and  tell 
the  State  Department,  or  any  other  department,  who  I  take  with  me  when  I 
travel. 

Q.  How  much  has  the  State  Department  paid  you  ? 

A.  1  have  received  $350  since  I  have  been  here,  and  $100  from  the  marshal ; 
$450  in  all. 

Q.   Is  that  independent  of  the  money  to  pay  for  your  board  1 

A.  I  never  received  any  other  money  but  that ;  I  have  never  been  promised, 
in  any  way,  any  money. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  leave  the  service  of  the  steamship  company? 

A.  The  latter  end  of  last  September. 

Q.  What  business  did  you  carry  on  after  leaving  the  service  of  the  company  1 

A.  After  I  left  the  service  of  the  company  I  went  home  for  a  mouth  and  a 
half,  and  was  doing  nothing.  I  afterwards  went  west  to  look  for  a  place.  I 
went  to  Chicago  last  November,  and  staid  there  until  the  middle  of  January 
last.     In  Chicago  1  made  arrangements  to  open  an  office. 

Q.  Why  did  not  you  open  it  ? 

A.  Because  I  was  called  away  to  come  down  here. 

Q.  Who  called  you  here? 

A.  I  was  served  with  a  summons  by  the  marshal  of  Chicago,  or  his  deputy, 
I  do  not  know  which. 

Q.  To  appear  before  this  court  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  W^here  were  you  summoned  to  appear  before  the  Judiciary  Committee  ? 

A.  I  was  not  summoned  at  all.  During  the  session  of  the  thirty-ninth  Con- 
gress I  one  day  went  to  the  Capitol,  where  I  met  a  gentleman  friend  of  mine  of 
this  city.  W^hile  we  were  there,  before  the  opening  of  the  session,  he  intro- 
duced me  to  Mr.  George  S.  Boutwell,  one  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. He  told  him  who  I  was,  and  Mr.  Boutwell  then  asked  me  if  I 
would  testify  before  the  Judiciary  Committee.     I  told  him  1  had  no  objection. 

Q.  At  what  time  during  your  voyage  was  it  that  Surratt  told  you  in  regard 
to  the  account  you  have  given  us  of  shooting  these  Union  prisoners  ? 

A.  It  was  during  the  passage  ;  I  cannot  tell  the  date. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  when  it  was  in  the  order  of  events  you  have  narrated  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  what  he  told  you  first  ? 

A.  The  first  thing  he  ever  told  me  was  when  he  pointed  to  a  gentleman  pas- 
senger and  asked  me  if  he  was  not  an  American  detective.  He  then  stated  that 
if  I  knew  all  he  had  done  it  would  make  me  stare. 

Q.  What  was  the  next  thing  he  told  you  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  It  would  require  a  better  memory  than  I  have  to  re- 
member at  this  distance  of  time  everything  he  said,  in  regular  order  as  he  said 
it.  I  cannot  do  it.  I  can  only  say  he  told  these  things  to  me  during  the  pas- 
sage. 


480  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  You  stated  yesterday  that  he  told  you  these  things  along  in  that  voyage, 
and  that  on  the  day  of  your  landing  he  called  you  back  of  the  wheel-house  and 
repeated  what  he  had  said  ? 

A.  He  did  not  tell  me  all  he  told  me  before,  but  he  recounted  a  great  many. 

Q.  And  then,  after  doing  so,  took  out  his  revolver  and  said  that  he  wished  to 
live  long  enough  to  serve  Andrew  Johnson  in 

A.  Yes,  sir.  He  said,  "I  hope  to  God  1  may  live  two  years  longer,  in  order 
that  I  may  serve  Andrew  Johnson  as  Abraham  Lincoln  has  been  served."  I 
recollect  that  expression  because  the  action  of  the  man  at  the  time  is  indelibly 
fixed  on  my  mind. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  his  name  before  he  got  to  the  end  of  the  voyage  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  feel  no  curiosity  to  know  it? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Why  did  you  not  ask  him  1 

A.  Because  I  had  my  suspicions  as  to  who  the  man  was  from  his  conversa- 
tion. 

Q.  If  you  were  suspecting  why  did  you  not  develop  your  suspicions,  and 
satisfy  yourself  by  asking  him  ? 

A.  I  did  not  want  to. 

Q.  Why  did  you  do  it  finally  ? 

A.  Because  I  wanted  to  make  sure.  The  passenger  had  interested  me.  I 
think  you  would  have  felt  the  same  as  I  did  had  you  been  in  my  position,  and 
heard  all  I  heard. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  possible;  but  I  want  to  know  why  this  strong  desire 
to  know  who  this  remarkable  individual  was  did  not  lead  you  to  make  the  in- 
quiry before  he  started  to  leave  the  ship  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  asking  him  during  the  whole  passage  a  half  dozen  ques- 
tions ;  and  the  reason  I  did  not  question  him  is,  that  he  seemed  to  be  so  free  in 
expressing  everything  that  he  had  done,  that  I  thought  he  would  tell  me 
enough  without  my  questioning  him.  He  was  quite  free;  seemed  to  be  over- 
flowing with  the  subject. 

Q.  At  the  same  time  that  he  was  overflowing  with  the  subject  and  quite  free, 
I  understand  you  to  say  that  he  was  very  much  agitated,  and  very  nervous  and 
excited  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  if  he  happened  to  be  walking  alone,  and  any  one  came  suddenly 
behind  him,  he  would  turn  around  considerably  startled,  as  if  he  was  afraid  some 
one  would  come  and  catch  him. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  he  surrendered  to  the  gunboat,  and  the  gun- 
boat sent  out  a  small  boat ;  that  they  waited  until  the  small  boat  got  alongside 
and  then  fired  into  the  small  boat  and  escaped  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  many  men  there  were  in  the  small  boat  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  many  men  were  with  him  ? 

A.  He  told  me  some  dozen  or  fifteen. 

Q.  The  gunboat  hailed  them  1 

A.  It  did. 

Q.  And  they  hauled  to  ? 

A.  I  suppose  so. 

Q.  And  said  they  would  surrender  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  how  the  little  boat  got  back  to  the  gunboat,  and  what  the 
gunboat  did  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  suppose  he  did  not  know  himself. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  the  gunboat,  seeing  them  fire  into  the  small  boat, 
fired  into  them  " 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  481 

A.  He  did  not.  At  least  I  have  no  recollection  of  it.  He  said  that  they  fired 
into  them  and  threw  them  into  such  a  stupor  that  thoy  c.-^caped  to  the  shore. 

Q.  He  did  not  tell  you  what  the  position  of  the  gunboat  was  at  the  time  ? 

A,  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  yesterday  that  he  said  when  he  was  going  down 
below  Fredericksburg,  on  a  car  driven  by  negroes,  in  company  with  a  lady, 
that  some  men  came  along,  and  the  lady  said,  "  Shoot  the  damn  Yankees:"  and 
thereupon  they  fired  into  them  and  left  them  there  on  the  ground  ? 

A.  I  think  he  said  fired  at  them  and  left  them  there  on  the  ground,  and  went 
on  their  way.  I  would  nut  say  positively  that  he  used  the  words  "on  the 
ground." 

Q.  Did  the  car  stop  when  they  fired  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     He  said  they  stopped. 

Q.  Who  stopped  them  ? 

A.  He  did  not  say  who  stopped  them. 

Q.  Did  he  say  the  car  was  stopped,  or  the  prisoners? 

A.  The  car. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  make  that  revelation  to  anybody  ? 

A.  I  made  that  revelation  to  more  than  fifty  people. 

Q.  When? 

A.  Since  October,  1865,  when  Mr.  Wilding  told  me  that  this  government 
was  not  going  to  prosecute  the  prisoner ;  that  they  had  not  anything  against 
bim.  I  thought  the  matter  never  would  be  brought  up  before  the  public  again, 
and  so  I  made  no  secret  of  it.  I  told  it  to  whoever  wanted  to  know  it.  The 
first  time  I  saw  Mr.  Wilding  I  made  the  affidavit  that  you  have  there.  Then 
be  told  me  not  to  sail  back  to  Canada  again  without  calling  and  seeing  him. 
Our  steamers  were  sailing  every  Thursday.  On  the  Wednesday  previous  to 
my  sailing  to  Canada  I  went  and  saw  Mr.  Wilding,  and  be  then  told  me  that 
be  had  received  news  from  Mr.  Adams,  American  minister  at  London,  that  he 
was  not  going  to  do  anything  in  the  matter. 

Q.  Did  you  then  tell  him  about  the  shooting  of  these  prisoners  1 

A.  I  had  told  him  that  before,  when  I  made  the  affidavit. 

Q,  Did  he  tell  you  where  this  shooting  of  the  Union  soldiers  that  you  spoke 
of  yesterday  was  ? 

A.  Perhaps  be  did  ;  I  cannot  say  positively.  I  understood  bim  to  say  within 
the  confederate  lines. 

Q.  What  induced  you  to  make  this  affidavit  as  soon  as  you  landed  1 

A.  Because  I  thonght  the  prisoner  was  guilty  of  a  crime  not  only  against 
society,  but  against  civilization.  I  thought  it  was  my  duty  as  a  man  to  go  and 
give  him  up  to  the  proper  authorities. 

Q.  Did  you  continue  to  have  the  same  pleasant  relations  Avith  bim  on  the 
steamer  with  a  view  of  doing  that  ultimately  after  you  found  out  what  be  had 
done? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  bad  no  intention  of  giving  this  information  until  after  we 
arrived  in  Liverpool,  and  be  gave  me  bis  name.  I  made  up  my  mind  after  I 
found  out  positively  Avho  the  man  was,  that  be  was  guilty  of  a  great  crime, 
and  I  should  give  him  up. 

Q.  And  you  gave  him  up  simply  because  you  regarded  bim  as  an  enemy  to 
society  and  mankind  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  expect  any  reward  in  giving  him  up  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  did  not  then  know  that  a  reward  bad  been  offered  for  him. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated  that  you  expected  a  reward  ? 

A.  I  have  stated  that  since,  many  times.  I  will  explain  how  that  is.  At  the 
time  I  went  to  Mr.  Wilding  I  was  in  the  service  of  the  company,  and  not  being 
able  to  lose  my  situation  I  said  to  Mr.  Wilding  that  I  had  a  secret  of  import- 


482  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

ance  to  confide  to  him,  but  I  would  not  do  so  unless  he  promised  me  to  keep 
my  name  a  secret.  I  did  not  want  my  name  to  go  before  the  public  in  any  way 
whatever.  He  then  gave  me  his  promise  it  would  be  so.  I  then  made  my  affi- 
davit. I  would  not  at  first  tell  him  that  I  was  a  surgeon  in  the  Montreal  Steam- 
ship Company,  but  described  myself  simply  as  a  surgeon,  without  stating  in 
whose  employ  I  was.  He  went  to  the  company's  office  and  found  out  who  T 
was.  When  I  saw  him  next  he  says,  "  I  know  who  you  are,"  and  added,  "  If 
you  are  afraid  of  losing  your  position  I  will  state  that  there  is  a  heavy  reward 
offered  for  his  capture,  and  you  will  be  entitled  to  it  if  he  is  taken."  That 
was  a  week  after  I  had  made  my  affidavit.  As  to  having  said  that  I  was  enti- 
tled to  the  reward,  I  have  said  that  many  times,  I  often  said  before  he  was 
arrested,  or  before  I  knew  of  it,  and  since,  that  if  any  one  was  entitled  to  the 
reward,  I  thought  myself  just  as  much  entitled  to  it  as  anybody  else. 

Q.  How  much  have  you  said  you  were  entitled  to  1 

A.  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  that  you  were  entitled,  or  would  be  entitled,  to  $40,000  1 

A.  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind,  because,  to  this  day,  I  do  not  know 
what  the  reward  was. 

Q.  Haven't  you  stated  in  this  city  since  his  arrest  that  you  would  be  entitled 
to  the  reward,  and  intended  to  claim  it? 

A.  I  said  this — I  know  where  you  got  your  information — that  if  any  one  was 
entitled  to  a  reward  for  his  arrest,  I  thought  myself  as  much  entitled  to  it  as 
anybody  else. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  you  would  be  entitled  to  a  reward  for  his  conviction  1 

A.  1  didn't  say  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Have  you  said  that  you  were  entitled  to  the  reward  and  intended  to  claim  it  1 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  saying  so. 

Q.  Did  anybody  say  to  you  in  your  presence  that  you  were  entitled  to  it  and 
ought  to  claim  it,  and  you  assent  to  it  1 

A.  Somebody  might  have  said  so,  but  I  am  not  answerable  for  what  others 
say. 

Q.  Did  you  reply  t 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  anybody  saying  so. 

Q.  Didn't  some  one  ask  you  if  you  intended  to  claim  it,  and  you  said  you  did 
intend  to  claim  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  said  to  any  one  that  Suratt  told  you  that  he  was  in  Elmira 
on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  and  only  discovered  on  the  morning  of  the 
succeeding  morrow  that  the  President  had  been  assassinated  1 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated  that  Suratt  told  you  that  he  was  in  Elmira,  and  that 
he  went  from  there  to  some  town  in  New  York,  the  name  of  which  you  could 
not  recollect,  but  which  had  an  Indian  derivation  ? 

A.  1  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  any  one  that  Surratt  first  learned  of  the  assassination 
in  the  city  of  Elmira,  and  immediately  turned  his  face  towards  Canada  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  to  any  one  in  conversation,  in  which  the  question  of  your 
intimate  relations  with  Surratt  on  shipboard  came  up,  that  Surratt  could  not  have 
been  guilty  of  the  charge  of  assassination,  and  therefore  you  regarded  him  merely 
as  a  political  offender ;  the  victim  of  compromising  circumstances,  and  felt  no 
scruples  in  extending  to  him  aid  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  any  one  that  Surratt  told  you  that  the  whole  plan 
for  the  abduction  of  Lincoln  was  laid  by  Booth,  as  an  individual  enterprise ; 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT.  483 

that  Bootli  furnislied  the  funds,  bouglit  the  horses,  and  spent  in  that  way  some 
$4,000  ? 

A.  I  never  did,  in  that  way.  If  you  want  me  to  state  what  I  said,  I  will 
tell  you,  but  T  never  said  what  you  have  just  repeated. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated  anything  different  from  what  you  stated  on  the  stand  ] 

A.  I  will  answer  your  question.  He  told  me  that  Booth  and  othex-s  had 
planned  the  abduction  of  the  President. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  ask  you  whether  you  have  ever  made  any  statement  con- 
trary to  what  you  have  made  on  the  stand  ? 

A.  I  have  never  said  anything  contrary  to  it.  I  have  said  something  "  dif- 
ferent," but  not  "  contrary." 

Mr.  Merrick.     Now  go  on  and  state  what  you  said. 

A.  I  said  this — that  the  prisoner,  Booth,  and  others  had  planned  the  abduction 
of  President  Lincoln,  and  that  he  (the  prisoner)  and  Booth  between  them  had 
invested  S10,000  in  the  affair,  to  hire  horses  and  employ  men  to  operate  for 
them,  &c. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  to  any  one  after  your  return  trip  from  England,  in  which 
you  went  out  with  Surratt,  that  you  had  never  communicated  to  anybody  what 
Surratt  had  told  you  ? 

A.  I  never  said  anything  of  the  kind.     I  told  it  to  whoever  wanted  to  know  it. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  stated,  at  any  time  since  you  made  your  affidavit  before 
the  consul,  that  you  had  never  stated  any  of  the  conversations  with  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  never  did. 

Q.  1  understood  you  to  say  that  you  had  only  made  two  affidavits.  Didn't 
you  make  another  affidavit  in  Montreal  ? 

A.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Consul  General  Potter  there,  but  I  made  no 
affidavit. 

Q.  At  the  time  Surratt  called  upon  you  in  Liverpool,  had  you  then  made  your 
affidavit  before  the  consul  ? 

A.  1  had.  He  called  on  me  on  Wednesday,  and  I  had  made  the  affidavit  the 
Tuesday  previous. 

Q.  Of  course  you  kept  him  ignorant  of  what  you  had  done  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Your  object  I  suppose  was  to  have  him  arrested  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  call  upon  him  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  never  called  upon  him.     He  called  upon  me. 

Q.  Did  you  promise  Surratt  to  bring  him  remittances  of  money  from  Canada  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  that  after  you  had  made  this  aflidavit  ? 

A.  It  was  on  the  night  previous  to  my  leaving  Liverpool. 

Q.  Tliat  was  after  you  had  made  the  affidavit  ? 

A.  I  had  had  a  conrersation  with  the  consul,  and  he  stated  that  there  would 
be  no  prosecution  of  the  prisoner.  He  gave  me  a  letter  to  take  to  a  party  in 
Montreal. 

Q.  You  undertook  to  act  as  his  friend  after  you  had  made  this  affidavit  before 
the  consul  ? 

A.  T  did  undertake  to  act  as  his  friend.  The  letter  was  addressed  to  a  party 
I  knew,  and  I  took  it. 

Q.  Did  not  you  tell  him  when  you  returned  that  you  could  not  get  the  money  ? 

A.  I  told  him  that  his  friend  said  there  was  no  money  for  him. 

Q.  Then  you  saw  him  again  upon  your  return  trip  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  once,  I  believe. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  had  not  seen  him  after  you  went  with  him  to 
show  him  the  hoiise  to  which  he  was  recommended  1 

A.  I  saw  him  twice,  at  least,  if  not  three  times. 


484  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  How  often  did  you  see  him  during  your  then  stay  in  Liverpool  1 

A.  I  believe  at  the  time  he  crossed  I  saw  him  twice.  I  am  not  positive,  how- 
ever, whether  it  was  once  or  twice.  When  I  got  back  he  saw  the  arrival  of  our 
ship  announced  and  came  to  me  in  the  evening.  He  asked  me  if  I  had  any- 
thing for  him.     I  believe  that  is  the  last  time  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Did  Surratt  say  anything  to  you  about  his  being  in  want  of  money  1 

A.  He  did.  He  said  that  he  was  hard  up  for  money  ;  that  the  parties  where 
he  lived  seemed  to  be  tired  of  him. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  drink  with  him  on  this  occasion,  when  he  called  on  you 
to  see  if  you  had  any  money  for  him  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  you  did  not  believe  in  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  never  did,  nor  anything  of  the  kind.  I  am  not  foolish  enough 
to  say  anything  like  that. 

Q.  Did  you  take  a  copy  of  that  affidavit  before  the  consul  at  Liverpool  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  give  the  consul  at  Liverpool  a  copy  of  that  affidavit,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  C.  F.  Campbell  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  He  arrived  on  the  Nova  Scotia  with  you,  did  he  not  1 

A.  He  did. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

George  D.  Barton,  paymaster  United  States  navy,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  Assistant  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  State  on  what  vessel  you  were  in  the  latter  part  of  last  year. 

A.  At  that  time  I  was  attached  to  the  Swatara,  in  the  European  squadron. 

Q.  In  December,  1SG6,  where  was  the  Swatara  stationed  1 

A.  In  the  European  squadron. 

Q.  Whereabouts  in  that  month  were  you  ? 

A.  We  were  in  several  places — Marseilles,  Nice,  Villa  Franca,  and  other 
places. 

Q.  You  were  on  the  Mediterranean  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  at  various  ports. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  know  that  that  man  was  on  board  the  ship. 

Q.  State  when  and  where  you  first  met  him.     State  briefly  the  details. 

A.  I  first  met  him  at  Alexandria,  Egypt. 

Q.  At  what  time  1 

A.  The  day  he  was  brought  on  board  the  ship,  December  21,  1866. 

Q.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  when  he  was  brought  on  board  the  Swatara  as  a  prisoner :  I 
heard  he  was  coming,  and  went  on  deck  to  see  him  when  he  came. 

Q.  When  he  came  on  board  state  the  course  of  the  vessel. 

A.  After  we  took  him  on  board  we  went  to  Port  Mahon,  expecting  to  find  the 
admiral  there.  We  went  directly  from  Alexandria  to  Port  Mahon,  and  then  from 
there  to  Villa  Franca,  where  we  found  the  admiral.  We  were  then  ordered  to 
this  country  and  came  direct,  stopping  at  Madeira  for  coal. 

Q.  When  did  you  get  here,  and  where  did  you  deliver  the  prisoner  1 

A.  We  arrived  at  Cape  Henry  the  ISth  of  February,  came  up  the  river  and 
delivered  him  here  in  Washington. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  485 

Q.  Wliat  inontli  and  what  day  of  the  montli  ? 

A.  It  was  iu  February,  1  think  about  the  21st;  it  was  two  or  three  days  after 
we  arrived  off  Cape  Henry. 

Q.  State  how  the  prisoner  was  dressed  when  you  first  received  him  on 
board  the  vessel  ? 

A.  He  was  dressed  in  the  uniform  of  the  Papal  zouaves. 

Q.  Describe  it. 

A.  It  was  the  regular  zouave  dress,  very  much  the  same  as  we  have  here ; 
blue  pants,  red  trimmings,  blue  zouave  jacket,  fez  cap,  and  the  white  gaiters  of 
the  zouave. 

Q.  At  what  port  did  you  stop  before  going  to  Alexandria  ? 

A.  Malta. 

Q.  And  from  where  to  Malta  ? 

A.  To  Malta  from  Civita  Vecchia,  the  seaport  of  Rome. 

Q.  State  as  nearly  as  possible  the  time  of  your  departure  from  Civita  Vecchia, 
and  the  time  you  visited  Malta. 

A.  I  think  it  was  the  11th  or  12th  of  December  that  we  left  Civita  Vecchia, 
and  that  we  were  about  two  days  going  to  Malta,  and  about  five  days  going 
to  Alexandria. 

Q.  What  is  the  distance  from  Civita  Vecchia  to  Alexandria  ? 

A.  About  two  hundred  miles. 

Q.  Taking  about  six  days,  steam  or  sail  1 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  The  Swatara  is  a  steam  vessel? 

A.  0,  yes. 

Q.  You  brought  her  here  to  the  navy  yard  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  to  save  time  the  defence  admitted  that  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  was  the  man  taken  on  board  the  Swatara,  and  that  he  was  in  tlie 
zouave  uniform. 

William  M.  Wermerskirch,  resident  of  New  York  city,  sworn  and  ex- 
amined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  an  officer  in  the  ariny  in  1865? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  if  y oil  were  at  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  in  this  city,  on 
H  street  between  Seventh  and  Sixth,  No.  541,  on  the  17th  of  April,  18(35. 

A.  I  was,  on  Monday  night  the  17th  of  April,  18G5,  at  541  H  street  in  this  city 
the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  as  I  understood. 

Q.  What  officers  were  in  company  with  you  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Major  H.  W.  Smith.  There  were  two  detectives,  one  by  the  name  of 
Eosch  and  the  other  by  the  name  of  Samson. 

Q.  The  Major  Smith  who  was  examined  as  a  witness  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  ^Irs.  Surratt  at  the  house  on  that  occasion? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  ^e  her  when  you  were  a  witness  before  the  military 
commission  ? 

A.  Y"es,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  else  there  who  you  afterwards  recognized  when  you 
were  before  the  military  commission? 

A,  I  saw  a  man  who  I  understood  was  Payne,  or  Powell. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  how  long  you  had  been  at  the  house  before  Payne  made 
his  appearance. 


486  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  We  were  at  the  liouse  30  or  45  minutes ;  perhaps  it  may  have  been  an 
hour,  when  he  came  in. 

Q.  State  his  appearance  at  the  time  when  he  came  in  there — how  he  wa 
dressed. 

A.  He  had  on  a  coat  of  a  dark  gray  color,  black  pants,  ordinary  leather  boots, 
and  on  his  head  he  had  a  kind  of  a  head-dress  which  seemed  to  be  made  out 
of  the  sleeve  of  an  undershirt.  He  had  a  pick-axe  on  his  shoulder,  and 
looked  as  if  he  had  been  marching  over  muddy  roads. 

Q.  Describe  his  boots. 

A.  His  boots  were  full  of  mud,  and  from  their  appearance  and  the  mud  on  his 
pants  it  seemed  as  if  he  had  been  crouching  or  sitting  down  in  a  very  muddy 
place. 

Q.  Was  the  leg  of  his  pantaloons  over  his  boots  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  His  pantaloons  were  tucked  in  his  boots. 

Q.  Both  of  them,  or  one  1 

A.  I  think  both  of  them. 

Q.  State  what  he  said  when  he  came  to  the  house  ? 

A.  When  he  came  to  the  house  he  was  asked  to  come  in,  because  he  refused 
to  come  in  after  he  saw  strangers  present.  After  he  came  in  he  was  asked  what 
he  wanted  ;  he  said  he  wanted  to  see  Mrs.  Surratt ;  he  fii'st  inquired  if  that 
was  Mrs.  Surratt's  house;  he  was  then  confronted  with  Mrs.  Surratt  and  she  was 
asked  whether  she  knew  the  man ;  she  held  up  her  hands  and  said  she  did  not 
know  the  man,  and  called  God  to  witness.  "  Before  God  I  do  not  know  this 
man." 

Q.  What  explanation  did  Payne  give  of  being  there? 

A.  Payne  stated  that  he  had  been  engaged  by  Mrs.  Surratt  to  dig  a  gutter  in 
the  rear  of  her  house  in  the  yard  ;  that  he  had  met  Mrs.  Surratt  a  day  or  two 
previous  on  Pennsylvania  avenue,  and  that  she  had  engaged  him  to  do  this 
work. 

Q.  Who  asked  Mrs.  Surratt  whether  she  knew  Payne? 

A.  Major  Smith  asked  her. 

Q.  Did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  she  elevated  both  her  hands  or  one  of  her 
hands  ? 

A.  She  lifted  them  up,  but  not  very  high,  about  half  way  to  her  head,  about 
in  this  position,  (explaining.) 

Q.  She  i«aid  she  had  never  seen  that  man  before  ? 

A.  "I  have  never  seen  that  man  before." 

Q.  You  said  you  were  there  some  time  before  Payne  made  his  appearance; 
duriugthat  time  did  you  have  any  converstion  with  Mrs.  Surratt  or  hear  any 
conversation  between  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Major  Smith,  or  any  other  officer  with 
whom  you  were  acting  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  did  not  have  any  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt  during  the  time  or  after  ; 
Major  Smith  had.  When  we  entered  the  hcnise  I  took  possession  of  the  key  and 
locked  the  door.  I  stationed  myself  very  near  the  door,  so  as  to  be  able  to  open 
it  if  any  one  desired  to  enter.  In  that  way  I  was  kept  away  from  the  parlor  in 
such  a  way  that  I  could  not  overhear  everything  that  took  place  there. 

Q,.  Did  you  hear  any  part  of  the  conversation  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  you  did  hear. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  on  the  ground  that  the  witness  had 
stated  he  was  at  such  a  disttmce  that  he  could  not  hear  more  than  detached  por- 
tions of  the  conversation. 

Objection  overruled.     Witness  may  state  what  he  did  hear. 

Witness.  Major  Smith  told  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  other  ladies — there  were 
three  of  them — that  he  arrested  them  ;  that  they  were  his  prisoners  ;  that  ihey  had 
to  come  up  with  him  to  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  office.     Thereupon  Mrs 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  487 

Surratt  reqnoptecl  him  to  allow  her  to  go  \ip  and  got  their  cloakr^  and  bonnets  to 
put  on.  Major  Smith  told  lier  she  might  go  up  there,  and  accompanied  her 
himself.  Mhs  Anna  Surratt  had  been  weeping  a  great  deal  and  was  quieted  by 
]\Irs.  Surratt ;  what  she  said  to  her  daughter  I  do  not  know,  because  slie  said  it  in 
a  very  low  tone — whispered  it  to  her.  She  then  asked  Major  Smith's  permission 
to  kneel  down  and  pray,  and  she  thereupon  knelt  down.  Shortly  thereafter  they 
left.  AVe  had  sent  for  a  carriage  in  the  mean  time,  and  the  carriage  had  got  there 
and  they  were  sent  up  to  headquarters. 

Q.  After  praying  in  the  manner  you  have  described,  where  did  Mrs.  Surratt 
go? 

A.  After  prayer  she  came  out  in  the  hall ;  she  went  through  the  hall  and 
entered  a  carriage. 

Q.  Did  she  then  see  Payne  ? 

A.  It  was  at  that  time  she  saw  Payne. 

Q.  Then  the  remark  to  which  you  have  already  testified  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  her 
denial  that  she  knew  Payne,  was  made  after  this  ? 

A.  After  this  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  as  she  went  out  she  passed  Colonel  Morgan  by 
the  door  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  her  making  any  remark  at  that  time  ? 

A.  To  Colonel  Morgan — no,  sir. 

Q.  Or  did  she  make  any  remark  to  you  at  that  time,  that  you  heard  made  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  within  my  hearing. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  her  say  anything  more  after  that  1 

A.  I  did  not  after  that ;  no.  sir. 

Q.  Now  state  if  you  remained  and  made  an  examination  of  the  house. 

A.  I  remained  in  the  house  after  Mrs.  Surratt  had  been  sent  away.  Payne 
was  kept  there  at  that  time,  because  we  had  not  accommodations  for  him  in  the 
carriage,  and  no  men  to  send  with  him  to  headquarters.  Major  Suiitli,  Colonel 
Morgan,  and  myself  remained  and  searched  the  house  to  see  it  we  could  find  any 
evidence. 

Q.  Who  did  you  find ;   did  you  find  any  person  there  ? 

A.  We  found  a  colored  woman  in  the  kitchen. 

Q.  Would  you  know  her  if  you  were  to  see  her  1 

A.  I  think  I  would. 

Q.  How  old  a  woman  was  she  ? 

A.  I  never  thought  of  that  question  ;   I  should  think  about  30  or  32. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  her  since  ? 

A.   I  do  not  know  that  I  have  since  that  night. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  her  name  called  ? 

A.  Susan  Ann  Jackson  was  iier  name. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  in  the  house  ? 

A.  We  found  a  large  number  of  pictures,  letters,  and  papers,  bullet  mould, 
spurs,  a  pair  of  boots,  very  dirty,  which  had  been  left  there  immediately  previous, 
full  of  mud. 

Q.  You  speak  of  pictures  ;  do  you  mean  cartes-de-visites  ? 

A.  Cartes- de-visites.  We  found  them  scattered  about  the  house,  partly  on 
the  mantel-piece,  and  partly  in  albums. 

Q  Examine  these  (photographs  shown)  and  state  if  tiiese  are  among  the 
articles  you  found. 

A.  Yes,  sir;  these  photographs  or  pictures  are  very  much  like  those  found  in 
the  house.  1  did  not  make  any  marks  on  them,  but  I  think  these  are  the 
pictures. 

Mr.  Bradley.  That  will  not  do,  unless  you  can  identify  them. 

WiT.NESS.  This  one  of  General  Beauregard  was  found  in  the  house. 


488  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Afr.  Bradley.  Do  you  know  General  Beauregard,  and  can  you  identify  the 
picture  by  that  1 

WiTXKSS.  No,  I  never  saw  him.     I  have  seen  pictures  of  him, 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  this  evidence,  as  witness  had  stated  that  he  could 
not  identify  the  pictures. 

The  Court  said  witness  might  describe  any  pictures  he  found  there. 

Witness.  There  were  a  number  of  pictures  apparently  in  the  uniform  of  the 
confederate  army,  and  some  of  citizens.  They  had  names  written  under  them 
representing  to  be  the  names  of  the  persons  whose  pictures  they  were,  mostly 
prominent  rebels  in  civil  life  and  in  the  military  service  of  the  confederacy. 

Q.  What  were  the  names  of  these  persons  ? 

A.  Davis,  Stephens,  Beauregard,  and  others  that  I  do  not  now  recollect. 

Q.  Were  they  old  or  new  1 

A.  A  part  of  them  were  new  and  a  part  old.  They  seemed  to  have  been 
handled  a  great  deal. 

Q.  Was  there  any  other  picture  that  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  this  picture  I  found  in  the  back  room  lying  on  the  mantel-piece. 
(The  picture  referred  to  was  a  card  painted  in  colors  with  the  arms  of  the  State 
of  Virginia,  and  two  confederate  flags,  having  the  inscription — 

"  Thus  Avill  it  ever  be  with  tyrants." 

"  Virginia  the  mighty." 

"  Sic  semper  tyrannis."  ) 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  tlie  evidence  as  incompetent. 

The  Court  stated  that  it  would  be  proper  to  draw  out  from  the  witness  pre- 
cisely how  far  he  was  able  to  recognize  the  pictures.  He  might  suy,  on  the 
bundle  being  banded  to  him,  that  he  could  not  recognize  them,  and  yet,  on 
examining  them  in  detail,  he  might  be  able  to  identify  one,  two,  or  three  of  them, 
and  any  such  so  identified  could  go  to  the  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  understood  the  rule  to  be  that  when  a  witness  stated 
lie  could  not  identify  anything  there  was  an  end  to  the  matter. 

The  Court  said  that  although  the  witness  might  have  failed  to  identify  them 
when  shown  to  him  in  a  bundle,  each  individual  picture  might  still  be  shown 
one  by  one. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  did  not  object  to  that,  and  that  he  hardly  thought  it 
necessary  for  the  court  to  have  taken  the  time  to  have  made  the  remarks  he  had 
on  the  subject. 

The  Court  replied  that  he  objected  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Bradley  in  stopping 
the  witness,  after  he  had  failed  to  recognize  a  bundle  of  pictures,  from  identifying 
them  separately. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  was  not  so. 

The  Court  replied  it  was  so,  and  that  he  (the  court)  knew  it. 

The  witness  was  directed  to  proceed. 

WiT.NESS.    I  cannot  recognize  any  of  them  except  the  two  I  have  mentioned. 

By  the  Dlstrict  Attor.ney  : 

Q.  By  whom  were  these  pictures  numbered  1,  2,  and  4,  marked  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  they  were  not  marked  by  me. 

Q.  These  pictures  you  recovered   from  the  house;   what  did  you  do  then? 

A.  We  placed  them  first  in  a  bundle,  but  finding  we  had  got  so  many  papers 
and  articles,  which  we  thought  necessary  to  send  to  headquarters,  we  put  them 
in  a  trunk. 

Q.  To  whom  was  this  trunk  delivered  ? 

A.  It  was  sent  in  one  of  the  wagons  to  headquarters.  I  assisted  in  carrying 
it  out  of  the  room.  I  afterwards  saw  it  at  headquarters.  I  recognize  this  picture 
of  General  Beauregard  by  scratches  on  it  which  I  then  noticed  right  over  the 
bead. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  489 

Mr.  Merrick.  You  recognize  that  as  one  you  took  from  the  house  1 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  other  three  then,  you  do  not  recognize  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

David  S.  Gooding,  United  States  marshal  for  the  District  of  Cohimbia, 
sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  State  if  you  recognize  the  prisoner. 

A.  I  recognize  the  prisoner ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  if  he  was  delivered  into  your  cutsody;  if  so,  when  and 
where? 

A.  Not  having  known  I  was  to  be  called  as  a  witness,  at  this  moment  I  can- 
not fix  the  date  when  he  was  given  into  my  custody,  as  marshal  of  the  District. 
It  was  when  be  was  landed  at  the  navy  yard. 

Q.  After  receiving  him  what  did  you  do  with  him  I 

A.  I  took  him  in  a  carriage  with  Deputy  Marshal  Phillips. 

Mr.  Bradlev  said  that  the  defence  had  already  admitted  that  the  prisoner 
arrived  in  this  country  by  the  Swatara,  and  that  ought  to  be  sufficient. 

The  Court  said  that  was  true  ;  that  this  was  merely  a  waste  of  time. 

James  Walker,  (colored,)  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  in  the  city  1 

A.  I  came  here  in  1S62,  the  first  of  September,  from  Fredericksburg, 
Virginia. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  after  you  came  here  ? 

A.  When  I  first  came  here  I  followed  the  army  around  for  a  while.  I  went 
in  April,  1S63,  to  the  Pennsylvania  House,  kept  by  Greenwalt  &  Kirby. 

Q.  Where  is  the  Pennsylvania  House? 

A.  Mr.  Kimmell  lives  on  one  side,  and  Flemming's  stable  is  on  the  other. 

Q.  Near  a  livery  stable  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  what  street  ? 

A.  C  street,  between  Four-and-a-half  and  Sixth  street. 

Q.  What  was  your  business  there  ? 

A.  My  business  was  to  work  around  the  house.  I  had  charge  of  the  house 
from  half-past  twelve  o'clock  at  night  until  moi'uing. 

Q.  Did  you  know  a  man  they  called  George  A.  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  see  him  ? 

A.  He  came  there  on  a  stage  from  Marlboro'  or  Piscataway,  I  do  not  know 
which.     The  stages  came  from  both  these  places. 

Q.  How  often  had  you  seen  him  at  the  house  ? 

A.  He  stepped  there  two  or  three  weeks  or  more. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  anybody  there  who  came  to  visit  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  there  was  a  young  man  visiting  him  whom  he  called  John.  He 
told  me  he  was  his  friend. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  frequently  1 

A.  He  was  there  more  or  less  whenever  the  stage  would  come. 

Q.  Would  you  know  that  man  John  if  you  were  to  see  him  again  1 

A.  I  r'-ckon  I  ought  to  know  him. 

Q.  Is  that  the  man  ?  (pointing  to  the  prisoner,  who  stood  up  ) 
32 


490  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUREATT. 

A.  That  is  the  man  I  have  seen. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  ?een  that  man  there  visiting  Atzerodt   as  his  friend  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  how  often  ;  right  often.  They  were  there  together  at  the 
time  the  stage  came. 

Q.  Were  yon  in  the  habit  of  blacking  boots  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  the  bootblack. 

Q.  Do  yon  recollect  what  room  it  was  Atzerodt  occupied  ? 

A.  51,  more  or  less  ;    51. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  President  Lincoln  was  killed  ? 

A.  I  think  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  Atzerodt  that  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  was  it  that  you  saw  Atzerodt,  as  near  as  you  can  state  ? 

A.  It  was  between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock.  He  was  then  on  horseback  ;  he 
came  from  towards  the  Metropolitan,  down  C  street ;  turned  his  horse  round  at 
the  door  and  calls  me  to  hold  him;  I  goes  out  and  holds  the  horse;  he  goes  into 
the  bar,  but  does  not  stay  very  long. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  horse  did  he  ride  1 

A.  It  seems  to  me  it  was  a  light  bay. 

Q.  Now,  go  on  and  state  what  he  did. 

A.  He  asked  me  to  give  him  a  switch.  Said  his  horse  was  rather  apt  to  shy 
at  a  light.  Then,  said  he,  I  have  traded  my  horse  away.  He  had  a  dark  bay 
horse,  that  would  rack,  that  he  generally  rode. 

Q.  Did  you  give  him  a  switch  ? 

A.  I  did  not  find  a  switch  ;  I  took  an  old  barrel  hoop,  cut  it,  and  straightened 
it  out.     I  gave  it  to  him  in  his  hand,  and  he  went  off  the  way  he  came. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  any  more  after  that  ? 

A.  He  came  back  again  between  one  and  two  o'clock  that  night  and  wanted 
a  room. 

Q.  How  did  he  come  back  ? 

A.  He  came  afoot  to  the  dooi-.  I  was  lying  down  asleep.  When  he  rang  the 
bell  I  got  up  and  opened  the  door. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sleep  ? 

A.  I  always  slept  in  the  bar-room,  so  that  I  could  hear  the  bell  ring.  He 
came  in  and  says,  "  I  want  a  room."  Said  I,  "You  cannot  get  51 ;  it  is  occupied." 
He  then  said  he  didn't  care ;  he  wanted  a  bed.  I  said  there  was  a  vacant  bed  iu  53, 
and  he  could  go  to  it. 

Q.  Where  was  Mr.  Greenwalt  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  he  was  in  the  house. 

Q.  Did  any  one  come  with  him  at  that  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  one  gentleman  came  with  him. 

Q.  Who  was  that  gentleman  ? 

A.  The  gas-light  seemed  to  be  low.  I  had  put  the  gas  just  so  that  I  could 
see  to  go  through  the  passage.  Atzerodt  said  he  wanted  a  room  for  nim  and 
his  friend.  He  never  had  paid  me  for  his  lodgings.  His  friend  paid  for  his 
lodgings  and  wanted  to  take  the  early  train  the  next  morning. 

Q.  Who  was  that  man  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  it  was  ;  it  seemed  to  be  dark.  He  had  his  hat  to  one 
side  of  his  face,  just  this  way,  (explaining.) 

Q.  You  do  not  know  Avho  that  was  1 

A.  I  could  not  identify  Avho  he  was. 

Q.  Describe  him  1 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  a  young  man,  rather  full  in  the  face ;  his  face  looked  a 
little  red  in  the  dark.     I  did  not  examine  him  very  close. 

Q.  Was  he  a  tall  man  or  a  short  man  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  491 

A  He  was  pretty  tall  about  the  size  of  that  man  sitting  there,  (pointing  to 
prisoner;)  he  did  not  seem  to  be  quite  so  tall  as  he  is  now. 

(^.   Did  you  see  them  to  bed  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  took  them  up  to  the  room. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  tliey  leave  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  time — by  the  early  train.  There  were  three 
who  took  the  early  train.  I  had  to  go  for  a  hack  for  the  first  ti*ain  that  Sat- 
urday morning.  It  was  kind  of  misty  ;  I  went  round  to  the  Metropolitan  to 
get  a  hack,  but  there  were  none  there  and  I  had  to  make  up  as  far  as  Seventh  street 
and  Pennsylvania  avenue.  There  I  got  a  hack  ;  went  back  to  the  Pennsylvania 
House  and  put  a  lady  in  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  have  seen  Atzerodt  have  any  arms  about 
him  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  with  a  bowie-knife  and  pistol  in  the  room  where  he 
slept. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Did  you  see  these  men  come  and  go  about  the  same  time  ? 

A.  When  I  went  to  the  door  they  were  there  together;  I  do  not  know 
whether  one  came  before  the  other. 

Q.  You  were  examined  before  the  military  commission  down  at  the  Pen- 
itentiary ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  these  men  seem  to  be  in  company  with  each  other  at  all  ? 

A.  They  did  not  have  any  conversation  at  all  in  my  presence. 

Q.  Did  they  seem  to  know  each  other  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  what  they  knew  ;  they  did  not  say  anything  to  me.  At- 
zerodt seemed  to  call  the  other  his  friend,  and  must  have  known  him. 

Q.  When  you  were  asked  about  it  down  at  the  arsenal  did  you  not  say  you 
did  not  know  whether  they  knew  each  other  or  not;  that  they  had  no  conver- 
sation in  your  presence  ? 

A.  They  did  not  have  any  conversation  in  my  presence. 

Q.  Do  you  rem<;mber  whether  you  were  asked  to  describe  that  man  that 
came  in  that  night — what  sort  of  a  looking  man  he  was  ;  and  if  so,  what  did  you 
say  about  it,  if  yon  remember  ] 

A.  I  said  he  was  a  man  kind  of  red  in  the  face ;  that  he  had  a  slouch  hat, 
which  he  wore  a  little  over  one  eye. 

Q.  Did  he  look  like  a  young  man  ? 

A.  He  looked  like  a  young  man. 

Q.  Do  you  say,  then,  that  he  was  a  young  man  ? 

A.  He  looked  to  me  to  be  one. 

(I.  Did  you  say  that  when  yuu  were  examined  down  yonder  ? 

A.  I  disremember  whether  I  said  he  was  young  or  old.  I  do  not  think  I 
said  he  was  an  old  man. 

Q.  That  man  went  right  straight  to  his  room,  did  he  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  that  man  in  the  morning? 

A.  When  I  opened  the  door  to  go  for  the  hack  three  men  went  out  of  the 
passage;  that  man  was  one.  Three  of  thera  went  out  of  that  room  to  take  the 
early  train. 

Q.  Did  this  man  and  Atzerodt  go  away  at  the  same  time,  or  one  before  the 
other  1 

A.  No,  sir;  they  did  not  go  at  the  same  time;  Mr.  A'zerodt  came  out  after 
tlx'y  were  gone. 


492  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Henry  Benjamin  St.  Marie   sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 
Q.  Please  tell  us  where  you  were  in  tlie  montli  of  April,  1866. 
A.  I  was  in  the  Papal  states,  in  Italy. 
Q.  At  what  town  ? 
A.  Velletri. 

Q.  State  how  far  Velletri  is  from  Rome. 
A.  About  forty  miles. 
Q.  What  was  your  occupation  there  ? 
A.  I  was  a  soldier  in  the  Papal  army. 
Q.  What  company  were  you  in  ? 
A.  In  the  9th  company. 
Q.  What  was  that  called  ? 
A.  Papal  zouaves. 

Q.  Is  that  the  dress  ?  (exhibiting  the  dress  worn  by  the  prisoner  on  his  ar- 
rival in  this  country.) 
A.  That  is  the  dress,  sir. 
Q.  What  is  worn  on  the  head  ? 

A.  Sometimes  we  wear  that,  (fez  cap  taken  from  prisoner;)  at   dress   parade 
we  wear  a  cappa,  a  kind  of  cap  ;  when  not  on  parade  we  generally  wear  this. 
Q.  W^ere  you  stationed  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  going  through  my  exercise,  learning  to   drill,  in   the  9th 
company. 

Q.  Did  you  see  this  prisoner  there  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  was  he  dressed  ? 

A.  He  was  dressed  in  these  clothes,  I  think,  or  a  uniform   something  like 
them. 

Q.  Did  you  know  him  at  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   1  knew  him.  , 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  what  time  in  April  it  was  ? 

A.  As  far  as  I  can  remember  I  think  it  was  about  the  14th  or  15th  of  April. 

Q.  I  will  now  go  to  the  following  month  of  June;  state  whether  you  saw  the 
prisoner  in  that  month. 

A.  I  did  see  him  about  the  ISth  or  19th  of  June,  1S66. 

Q.  About  that  date  did  you  take  any  walk  with  him? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  came  to  my  quarters  and  asked  me  to  take  a  walk  with  him. 

Q.  Who  else  walked  with  you  ? 

A.  Two  other  zouaves.  Frenchmen ;  their  names  were  DeBart  and  LeBarr. 

Q.  You  four  walked  together? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  we  took  a  walk. 

Q.  What  road  did  you  go? 

A.  Outside  the  city  of  Velletri,  on  what  is  called  the  road  to  Naples. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  to  the  prisoner  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I   was  occasionally  speaking  with  him  in  English,  and  occa- 
sionally to  the  two  others  in  French. 

Q.  Did  the  prisoner  tell  you  at  this  time  anything  about  his  disguises  ?  if  so, 
what  ? 

A    Yes,  sir;  I  asked  the  prisoner  how  he  got  out  of  Washington;  if  he  had 
a  hard  time  in  escaping.     He  told  me  he  had  a  vejiy  hard  time. 

Q.  Huw  did  he  say  he  got  out  from  Washington  ? 

A.  He  told  me  he  left  that  night. 

Q.  What  night  ? 

A.  The  night  of  the  assassination,  or  the  next  morning,  I  am  not  positive. 

Q.  What  was  the  disguise,  if  any,  he  told  you  he  had? 


TRIAL   OF   JOHN  H.   SURRATT.  493 

A.  He  told  me  he  was  so  disguised  that  nobody  could  take  him  for  an  Ameri- 
can ;  that  he  looked  like  an  Enf^lishman ;  that  he  had  a  scarf  over  his  shoulders. 
He  did  not  mention  any  other  disguise  that  I  remember. 

Q.  We  will  now  pass  on  to  Malta ;  did  you  see  him  at  Malta? 

A.  No,  sir;    I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Malta? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  Malta  where  did  you  go? 

A.  To  Alexandria. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  Malta  he  was  not  there  ? 

A.  He  was  not  there. 

Q.  When  \ou  got  to  Alexandria,  in  Egypt,  did  you  see  him  there? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  board  the  Swatara. 

Q.  In  Egypt? 

A.  In  Egypt ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley  inquired  at  what  time  the  testimony  for  the  prosecution  could 
be  completed,  stating  that  he  desired  twenty-four  hours'  notice  in  order  to  be 
ready  to  proceed  with  the  defence. 

The  District  Attorney  said  it  would  be  impossible  to  state  at  precisely 
what  time.  He  hoped  they  would  be  able  to  conclude  to-morrow,  but  could  not 
state  in  advance  bow  long  a  time  would  be  occupied  in  the  examination  of  a 
witness. 

The  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  morning  at  11  a.  m. 

Wednesday,  July  3,  1867. 
L.  J.  A.  McMillan  recalled  for  further  cross-examination : 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  In  the  examination  yesterday,  I  asked  you  with  regard  to  certain  conver- 
sations between  yourself  and  other  parties.  I  wish  to  make  an  additional  inquiry 
in  reference  to  a  conversation  omitted  at  that  time.  Did  you  cross  the  Atlantic 
in  the  Nova  Scotia  with  Stephen  F.  Cameron  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Stephen  F.  Cameron  that  John  Surratt  told  you. 
that  he  was  in  Elmira  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April  ? 

A.  I  said  no,  and  I  repeat  the  same  answer  now. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Stephen  F.  Cameron  that  Surratt  told  you  that  he 
was  iu  Elmira  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  and  only  learned  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  succeeding  morrow  that  the  President  had  been  assassinated  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Mr.  Cameron  that  Surratt  told  you  that  he  was  in 
Elmira,  that  he  went  from  there  to  some  town  in  New  York,  the  name  of  which 
you  could  not  recollect,  but  which  had  an  Indian  derivation  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  times  when  these  statements  were  made  were  on  the  voy- 
age in  the  Nova  Scotia.     I  do  not  allude  to  any  other  time. 
,  Witness.  I  understand  you. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Mr.  Cameron,  or  to  any  one  else,  that  Surratt  first 
learned  of  the  assassination  of  the  President  in  the  city  of  Elmira,  and  that  he 
immediately  turned  his  face  towards  Canada  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q  Did  you  ever  say  to  Mr.  Cameron,  or  anyone  else,  in  a  conversation  witli 
'•egard  to  your  intimate  relations  with  Surratt  on  ship-board,  that  Surratt  could 
not  have  been  guilty  of  the  charge  of  participation  in  the  assa.^sination,  and 
therefore  you  regarded  him  merely  as  a  political  offender  and  a  victim  of  com- 
promising circumstances,  and  that  you  felt  no  scruples  in  extending  aid  to  him  ? 


494  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Or  words  to  that  effect  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Cameron,  or  to  any  one  else,  that  Survatt  told  you 
that  the  whole  plan  for  the  abduction  of  Lincoln  was  laid  by  Booth  as  an  indi- 
vidual enterprise  ;  that  Booth  furnished  the  funds,  bought  the  horses,  and  spent 
in  that  way  some  four  or  six  thousand  dollars  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  say,  without  stating  the  amount  of  money,  that  the  whole 
plan  was  a  plan  of  Booth's  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Cameron  on  that  occasion,  or  on  any  other,  or  to 
any  one  else,  that  after  making  your  affidavit  in  Liverpool,  you  had  never  com- 
municated your  conversations  with  Surratt  to  any  one  else  but  himself,  the  said 
Cameron  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  to  Cameron,  or  to  any  one  else  on  that  occasion,  that 
Surratt  told  you  the  first  knowledge  that  he  had  of  his  mother's  peril  was  of  her 
impending  or  immediate  execution  1 

A.  I  remember  the  prisoner  stating  something  about  his  mother;  but  whether 
I  said,  or  he  said  to  me,  that  the  first  he  heard  of  her  peril  was  pending  the 
execution,  I  do  not  remember.  1  do  not  think  anything  of  the  kind  was  said. 
There  was  something  said  about  her,  but  1  could  not  say  what  it  was. 

Q.  Don't  you  recollect  saying  to  Cameron  that  Surratt  told  you  he  did  not 
knew  anything  of  his  mother's  danger  until  about  the  time  of  her  execution? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did. 

Charles  H.  M.  Wood,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  1  am  a  barber  by  trade. 

Q.  Have  you  been  a  barber  in  the  city  of  Washington  for  some  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  ever  since  I  have  been  in  the  city. 

Q.  How  many  years'? 

A.  Since  December,  1862. 

Q.  Where  was  your  barber  shop  in  April,  1865? 
"^     A.  I  came  here  on  a  Saturday,  about  the  first  of  September,  1862,  and  I  en- 
gaged to  go  to  work  at  Messrs.  Booker  &  Stewart's  barber  shop,  on  E  street, 
near  Grover's  theatre,  next  to  the  old  Union  building. 

Q.  In  this  city? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Are  yo!.  working  at  the  same  shop  now? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  now  have  a  barber  shop  under  the  Ebbitt  House,  near  Four- 
teenth street.     I  am  now  in  business  for  myself. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Booth  by  sight  before  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Very  well,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  cut  his  hair? 

A.  I  have,  frequently. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  shave  him  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  You  knew  him  well  ? 

A.  Very  well,  sir. 

The  prisoner  at  the  bar  was  here  requested  to  stand  up,  which  he  did. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  that  man  (pointing  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar)  before  ? 

A.  I  have. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURKATT.  495 

Q.  On  tlip  morning  of  the  assassination  did  you  ^ee  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sen  him? 

A.  I  saw  him  at  Mr.  Booker's  barber  shop. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  to  him  ? 

A.  I  shaved  him  and  dressed  his  hair. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  lis  who  came  into  the  shop  with  him,  if  anybody  ? 

A.  Mr.  Booth  came  in,  there  were  four  ]jersous  who  came  together. 

Q.  Who  were  the  four  persons  beside  Booth  and  Surratt  ? 

A.  A  gentleman  I  take  to  be  JNIr.  McLaughlin,  they  called  him  "Mac,"  and 
from  his  appearance;  (I  having  since  seen  the  picture  of  Mr.  McLaughlin,)  I 
should  think  it  was  him. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  had  come  from  that  morning — McLaughlin  ? 

A.  They  were  speaking  of  Baltimore;  the  conversation  between  them  was  in 
reference  to  some  Baltimore 

Q.  Between  whom  ? 

A.  Between  Mr.  Booth.  Mr.  ^[cLaughlin  and  ^[r.  Surratt,  the  other  gentle- 
man that  was  witU  them  had  nothing  to  say;  he  sat  down  nearly  in  the  rear. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  other  man  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  either  of  the  parties  afterwards  except  this  gentleman  (the 
prisoner.) 

Q.  Who  was  the  other  man,  do  you  know  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  him. 

Q.  You  may  describe  the  man. 

A.  He  was  a  short  thick-set  man  with  a  full  round  head  ;  he  had  on  dark 
clothes  which  we  generally  term  rebel  clothes,  and  a  black  slouched  hat. 

Q.  Did  you  cut  Booth's  hair  that  morning? 

A.  I  did  ;   I  trimmed  his  hair  round  and  dressed  it. 

Q.  Won't  you  tell  the  jury  what  occurred  between  Booth  and  Surratt  whilst 
you  were  trimming  Booth's  hair? 

A.  There  was  nothing  particular  that  occuri'ed. 

Q.  What  was  said  ? 

A.  AVhilst  I  was  waiting  on  Mr.  Booth,  Mr.  Surratt  was  sitting  just  in  the 
rear  of  me;  the  thick-set  man  was  sitting  to  the  left  of  the  looking  glass,  just 
in  the  i-ear  of  my  chair.  The  glass  was  next  to  the  wall,  and  ^[r.  Surratt  was 
on  th(^  right  side  of  the  glass,  the  other  one  on  the  left  hand.  There  were  not 
any  words  particularly  that  1  remember  said  or  interchanged ;  but  when  I  had 
got  through  waiting  on  Mr.  Booth,  he  (Mr.  Booth)  got  out  of  the  chair  and  ad- 
vanced toward  the  back  part  of  the  shop;  ^Ir.  McLaughlin  was  in  that  direction 
doing  something  about  the  glass.  Mr.  Surratt  took  my  chair  immediately  on 
Mr.  Booths'  getting  out.  During  the  time  that  I  was  spr-eading  my  hair  gown 
over  him,  and  making  other  preparations  for  shaving  him;  this  other  young 
man,  rather  tall,  with  dark  hair — I  think  not  black  but  dark  brown  hair- — i-ather 
good  looking,  with  a  moustache,  was  figuring  before  the  glass  ;  he  had  on  a 
black  frock  coat,  and  putting  his  hand  in  his  pocket  he  took  out  two  black  braids; 
one  of  the  braids  with  cuils  he  put  on  the  back  of  his  head,  allowing  the  curls  to 
hang  down,  he  then  took  the  other  braid  and  put  it  on  the  front;  it  had  curls 
also,  and  they  hung  on  the  side.  When  he  had  done  this  he  said;  "John,  how 
does  that  look  ?" 

Q.  Whom  did  he  address  as  John  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  Mr.  Surratt  or  Booth,  but  in  making  the 
remark,  he  said  "John."  1  turned  round  and  said,  "he  would  make  a  pretty 
good  looking  woman,  but  he  is  rather  tall."  Says  he,  "Yes,"  in  rather  a  jocular 
manner,  laughing  at  the  time.  He  seemed  to  look  taller  to  me  when  he  put  on 
these  curls  than  he  did  before,  though  1  had  not  taken  particular  notice  of  him 


496  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUaftATT. 

before  that.    Tliis  time  Mr.  Surratt  said  to  me :  "Give  me  a  nice  stave  and  clean 
me  up  nict'ly;  I  am  going  away  in  a  day  or  two." 

Q.  "Will  you  state,  when  he  said  "Clean  me  up  nicely,"  what  his  condition  was 
as  to  being  clean  or  not? 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  a  little  dusty,  as  though  he  had  been  travelliug  some  little 
distance  and  wanted  a  little  cleaning  and  dressing  up,  as  I  am  frecjuently  called 
upon  by  gentlemen  coming  in  after  a  short  travel. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  "Wiiat  was  that  ? 

A.  He  asked  me  if  I  noticed  that  scar  on  Booth's  neck.  Says  I,  "  Yes." 
Says  he,  "  They  say  that  is  a  boil,  but  it  is  not  a  boil;  it  was  a  pistol  shot."  I 
observed,  "  He  must  have  gone  a  little  too  far  to  the  front  that  time."  This 
gentleman  (Mr.  Surratt)  observed,  "He  like  to  have  lost  his  head  that  time." 
I  then  went  on  and  completed  the  shaving  operation.  I  shaved  him  clean  all 
round  the  face,  with  the  exception  of  where  his  moustache  was.  He  had  a  slight 
mustache  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  the  hair? 

A.  After  I  was  done  shaving,  I  washed  him  off  in  the  usual  way,  dressed  his 
hair,  and  put  on  the  usual  tonics  and  pomade. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  about  what  time  in  the  morning  it  was. 

A.  1  think  it  was  near  about  nine  o'clock.     I  had  had  my  breakftist. 

Q.  Where  had  you  been  that  morning  ? 

A.  I  had  been  up  to  Mr.  Seward's,  and  had  come  down  again. 

Q.  Where  did  you  find  Mr.  Seward  ? 

A.  In  his  room,  third  story. 

Q.  Was  he  up  or  in  bed  ? 

A.  He  was  up. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  other  gentlemen  at  Mr.  Seward's  that  morning  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   1  think  I  did. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  see  ? 

A.  Mr.  Stanton  called.  Mr.  Seward  Avas  either  on  the  bed,  or  on  the  chair 
by  the  bed,  when  I  shaved  him.     I  do  not  lemember  now  exactly  which. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley. 

Q.  Where  did  you  commence  to  work  after  arriving  in  this  city? 

A.  I  commenced  to  work  at  Messrs.  Booker  &  Stewart's,  on  E  street. 
--  Q.  And  continued  to  work  there  until  you  went  to  the  Ebbitt  House? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  this  thing  occurred  at  the  shop  of  Messrs.  Booker  &  Stewart,  about 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morning? 

A.  I  think  it  w-as  about  nine  o'clock  ? 

Q.  And  you  had  been  up  to  Mr.  Seward's  and  shaved  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  and  returned. 

Q.  Mr.  Stanton  was  there? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  else  was  in  the  shop  at  the  same  time,  do  you  remember? 

A.  There  were  several  hands  at  work  there  at  the  time. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  looking  man  was  McLaughlin  ? 

A.  The  gentleman  I  have  taken  to  be  McLaUiihlin,  they  called  him  "  Mac  " 
in  referring  to  him,  was  a  man  quite  as  tall  as  Mr.  Surratt,  I  think  near  about 
the  height  of  Jlr.-  Surratt  and  13ooth.  They  were  all  three  nearly  about  one 
height.     Perhaps  he  might  have  been  a  little  the  tallest. 

Q.  Was  he  a  fine  looking  man  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  what  I  would  term  a  very  handsome  man. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  his  hair  at  all? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  497 

A.  It  was  very  dark  brown.     I  do  not  think  it  was  black. 

Q.  Had  he  any  beard  on  his  face? 

A.  He  had  a  moustache  on,  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  an  imperial ;  but  I  am  not  so 
sure  about  that.  I  am  certain  he  had  a  mou.stache.  I  took  more  particular  notice 
of  his  hair  and  his  size.  He  had  on  a  black  frockcoat.  I  think  he  had  a  black 
silk  hat,  and  light  pantaloons. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  Mr.  Surratt  was  dressed  ? 

A.  He  had  on,  I  think,  as  near  as  my  memoiy  serves  me,  rather  light  clothes, 
but  I  did  not  take  particular  notice  of  his  clothes.  As  soon  as  he  got  into  my 
chair,  I  took  up  my  hair-gown  and  spread  it  all  over  his  clothes,  so  that  you 
could  not  see  hardly  anything  except  the  tips  of  his  pantaloons. 

Q.  You  saw  him  while  you  were  shaving  Mr.  Booth,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  He  came  in  with  the  rest  of  the  party. 

Q.  Could  not  you  distinguish  him  as  well  as  you  could  distinguish  McLaugh- 
lin and  the  other  man  1 

A.  If  I  had  taken  that  much  notice.  I  took  more  particular  notice  of  his  head 
and  face. 

Q.  You  had  the  same  opportunity,  however,  to  observe  him  as  you  had  to 
observe  Mr.  McLaughlin  ? 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  remember,  the  clothes  he  had  on  were  rather  light.  I 
cannot  remember  the  particular  kind  of  clothes,  whether  woollen,  linen,  or  cotton. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  what  sort  of  a  hat  he  wore  1 

A.  I  did  not  take  notice  of  his  hat.  Gentlemen  generally  come  in  there,  take 
their  seats  on  the  side  next  the  wall,  and  immediately  hang  their  hats  on  the 
rack  against  the  wall. 

Q.  You  say  he  had  no  beard  on  his  face  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  he  had  a  slight  mustache. 

Q    No  imperial,  goatee,  or  anything  on  his  chin  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  I  understand  you  that  you  had  never  seen  any  of  these  men  but  Booth 
before  that  morning? 

A.  I  knew  Booth  very  well.  I  had  seen  him  in  Baltimore,  and  cut  his  hair 
when  a  boy. 

Q.  You  had  not  seen  the  other  three  before  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   1  do  not  think  1  had  seen  any  of  the  others. 

Q.  And  you  have  never  seen  them  since,  until  you  saw  Mr.  Surratt  here  ? 

A.  I  live  on  E  street,  just  below  here,  and  as  I  was  going  down  to  my  dinner 
one  day,  passing  this  court-house,  he  was  coming  out  with  the  jailor.  I  stood 
aside  and  looked.  When  I  saw  him  I  was  utterly  astounded.  I  instantly 
thought  I  recognized  in  him  the  gentleman  I  had  shaved  and  waited  on  imme- 
diately after  Mr.  Booth,  on  the  morning  of  the  14th  of  April.  It  made  such  an 
impression  on  my  mind  that  I  spoke  of  it. 

Q,  When  was  it  you  met  and  recognized  him  ? 

A.  Last  week,  I  think,  Monday  or  Tuesday. 

Q.  Do  3'ou  recollect  whether  there  was  anybody  in  the  shop  that  morning  ? 

A.  The  young  man  that  worked  in  the  cliair  back  of  me,  I  think,  was  in 
there.  His  name  is  Teebo ;  he  is  a  small  man.  He  is  now  working  in  Nor- 
folk. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  there  were  any  other  customers  ? 

A  Well,  about  that  time  we  were  very  much  pressed,  and  we  all  had  about 
as  much  as  we  could  do,  there  were  so  many  strangers  coming  in.  The  shop 
being  next  to  the  paymaster's  office,  soldiers  used  to  come  in  there  in  perfect 
droves. 

Q.  Particularly  in  the  morning  ? 

A    Yes,  sir,  generally  pretty  hard  at  work  all  day  at  that  time. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  else  there  except  yourself  ? 


498  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Tlie  man  who  worked  next  to  me  ia  the  next  chair,  I  thiuk,  was  gone  to 
breakfast  about  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  about  what  time  he  went  to  breakfixst  1 

A.  Some  of  us  took  our  breakfast  before  we  came  to  work.  Others  would  be 
at  the  shop  and  work  until  we  came  and  then  go  to  breakfast. 

Q.  What  time  did  that  man  go  to  his  breakfast  ] 

A.  Between  8  and  9  o'clock,  along  thereabout 

Q.  What  was  his  name  ? 

A.  Robert  Burton,  I  think ;  I  am  not  sure  about  the  first  name. 

Q.  Wh(  re  is  he  ? 

A.  He  is  there  working  at  the  same  place. 

Q.  Ts  he  not  one  of  the  proprietors  1 

A  No,  sir;  he  was  working  on  the  first  chair  on  the  left  hand  as  you  enter 
the  door. 

Charles  Ramsell,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPoNT  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  1 

A.  Boston,  Massachusetts. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  war  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  company  and  regiment  ? 

A.  Company  D,  Third  Massachusetts  heavy  artillery. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  year  1865  did  your  company  come  to  Washington? 

A.  They  came  here  in  '64  ;  I  do  not  remember  exactly  what  time. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  year  1 

A.  It  was  in  May. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  here  ? 

A.  Until  September,  '65,  I  think. 

Q    Do  you  remember  the  day  that  the  President  was  assassinated  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  In  the  early  morning  of  that  day,  won't  you  tell  the  jnry  what  you 
did? 

A.  I  was  in  Washington  the  day  of  the  assassination.  The  morning  after  I 
was  not  in  the  city.     I  came  down  from  Fort  Bunker  Hill  on  that  day. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  come  from  Fort  Bunker  Hill  to  Washington  on  the 
1:4th  ? 

A.  About  9  o'clock,  I  should  think ;  between  9  and  10. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  how  far  Fort  Bunker  Hill  was  from  this  court-house. 

A.  It  was  about  four  miles. 

Q.  In  which  direction  1 

A.  I  could  not  tell  in  which  direction,  but  it  was  on  the  Bladensburg  road. 

Q    AVas  it  the  turnpike  road  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  the  turnpike  road  ;  it  is  the  road  that  leads 
to  Glenwood  cemetery. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  in  Washington  that  night  ? 

A.   I  did. 

Q.  Where  did  you  stay  ? 

A.  In  the  early  part  of  the  evening  I  was  at  Canterbury  Hall,  a  place  of  amuse- 
ment ;  and  I  stayed  in  the  barracks  of  some  company  that  was  here  at  that 
time,  during  the  night.  It  is  a  place  called  "Soldiers  Home"  or  "  Rjst,"  or 
something  of  tliat  kind,  near  the  depot. 

Q.  In  the  early   morning  following  the  assassination  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  went  from  here  out  to  Fort  Bunker  Hill. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  1 

A.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Robert  G.  Staples. 


TRIAL  OP  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  499 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  bow  you  went,  whether  on  foot  or  horseback  ? 

A.  On  foot. 

Q.  What  wad  Staples  1    Was  he  in  your  company  ? 

A    He  was  a  private  in  my  company. 

Q.  About  what  time  did  you  leave  Washington  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  exactly  what  time — between  4  and  5. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury,  after  you  got  out  on  the  Bladensburg  road,  what 
you  saw  that  attracted  your  attention  1 

A.  I  saw  a  horse  hitched  to  au  opening  in  the  fence,  about  two  miles  from 
here. 

Q.  Describe  that  horse. 

A.  It  was  a  dark  bay  horse. 

Q.  Describe  his  forehead. 

A.   I  think  he  had  a  star  on  the  forehead,  if  I  recollect  right. 

Q.  What  of  his  feet  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  exactly,  but  I  think  he  had  one  white  foot. 

Q    What  had  he  on  him  ? 

A.  Trappings  ;  a  citizen's  saddle  and  a  piece  of  woollen  blanket  under  it. 

Q.  What  kind  of  blanket  was  it  ? 

A.  Soldier's  blanket,  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  W^as  he  saddled  and  bridled  ? 

A.   I  think  he  was. 

Q.  How  near  the  house  was  it  where  he  was  tied? 

A.  It  may  be  a  hundred  yards  from  it. 

Q.  Did  he  excite  any  remark  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  at  the  time. 

Q.  You  observed  him  ? 

A.   I  did. 

Q.  Soon  after  you  passed  this  horse  tell  the  jury  what  occurred. 

A.  About  fifteen  minutes  after  I  passed  this  horse  a  man  rode  up  to  me  on 
this  same  horse  and  asked  me  if  there  would  be  any  trouble  in  getting  through 
the  pickets,  or  something  of  that  kind. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him  ? 

A  I  do  not  recollect  what  I  told  him  exactly,  but  I  think  I  told  him  that  I 
thought  there  would  be,  or  something  to  that  effect.  I  asked  him  if  he  l.ad 
heard  of  the  news  of  the  assassination  of  the  President. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ?    . 

A.  He  did  not  make  any  answer,  but  gave  a  sneering  laugh. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  ? 

A.  He  looked  back  and  on  both  sides. 

Q.  In  wliat  manner  ? 

A.  He  ap[)eared  to  be  very  uneasy,  fidgetty,  and  nervoiis. 

Q.  Could  you  discover  anything  that  arrested  his  attention  ? 

A.  There  was  a  man  coming  from  the  city,  an  orderly,  I  think,  carrying  des- 
patches to  Fort  Bunker  Hill.     As  soon  as  he  saw  him  coming  he  rode  away. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  when  he  saw  this  man  coming  ? 

A.   He  said  he  thought  he  would  try  it,  and  rode  away. 

Q    Try  what  ? 

A,  Try  the  pickets. 

Q.   How  did  he  ride  1 

A.  The  horse  went  at  a  pretty  fast  gait. 

[The  prisoner  was  here  requested  to  stand  up  in  such  a  position  that  the 
witness  might  see  his  back.] 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  man  (pointing  to  the  prisoner)  before  ? 

A.  I  think  I  have  seen  that  back  before. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  on  that  horse  1 


500  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURKATT. 

A.  I  tLink  I  (lid. 
No  cross-examination, 

Frank  M,  Heaton,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Carrington  : 

Q.  AVill  you  state  where  you  reside  1 

A.  462  Eleventh  street,  in  this  city. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  occupation  ? 
.  A.  I  am  a  clerk  in  the  General  Land  Office. 
■  Q.  How  long  have  you  occupied  that  position  ? 

A.  About  six  years. 

Q.  What  State  are  you  from  ? 

A.  Indiana. 

Q.  State,  if  you  know  a  public  building  here  formerly  used  as  a  theatre, 
called  Ford's  theatre  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  reside  in  1865  ? 

A.  On  the  northwest  corner  of  Tenth  and  F  streets. 

Q.  HoAv  near  is  that  to  Ford's  theatre  1 

A.  About  half  a  square,  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  where  you  were  on  the  day  of  the  assassination  of  the 
President. 

A.  I  was  living  in  that  house. 

Q.  State  if  you  were  at  your  bouse  at  night. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  At  what  time  1 

A.  I  was  there  all  the  evening,  except  about  half  an  hour,  when  I  was  absent 
at  the  theatre. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  the  President's  carriage  came  to  the  theatre  that 
night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  recognize  the  carriage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  saw  the  President  and  his  wife  and  the  party  get  out  of  it. 

Q.  State  where  you  Avere  standing  at  that  time. 

A    In  front  of  the  theati'e. 

Q.  How  far  from  the  building  ] 
-  A.  On  the  pavement,  a  few  feet  from  it. 

Q.  I  will  ask  you  if,  during  that  time,  your  attention  was  attracted  to  the 
crowd,  either  going  in  or  coming  out  of  the  theatre,  or  coming  from  the  restau- 
rant in  that  vicinity,  and  if  you  saw  any  face  that  attracted  your  particular  at- 
tention ? 

A.  I  saw  one  face  at  the  time  that  attracted  my  attention  particularly. 

Q.  Go  on  and  state  what  you  did  see. 

A.  At  the  time  the  President's  carriage  drove  up,  I  saw  a  half  a  dozen,  or 
a  dozen,  persons  come  round  it  from  the  restaurants  in  the  vicinity.  On  last 
Tuesday  week  I  came  into  court  and  saw  the  prisoner  for  the  first  time.  On 
looking  at  him  I  saw  a  very  distinct  resemblance  between  the  face  I  saw  that 
night  and  his  own. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  where  you  saw  the  prisoner. 

A.  In  front  of  Ford's  theatre  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  1865. 

Q.  About  what  time  was  that  ? 

A.  Between  a  quarter  of  eight  and  a  quarter  past  eight. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  person  in  whose  company  he  was  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

No  cross-examination. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  501 

Theodore  Benjamin  Khodes,  sworn  aud  exatniued 

By  Mr.  Carrington  : 

Q.  State  where  you  live. 

A.  I  am  living  at  the  present  time  east  of  the  Capitol. 

Q    In  this  city  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii-. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  here  1 

A.  Since  1862.     I  was  away  but  a  very  short  time. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  1 

A.  Repairing  of  clocks  aud  watches,  and  working  in  the  garden  that  I  have 
adjoining  my  house. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the  day  of  the  as- 
sassination of  President  Lincoln. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  this  building  on  Tenth  street,  between  E  and  F,  called 
Ford's  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State,  if  on  the  day  of  the  assassination  you  were  in  that  neighborhood. 

A.  I  was  in  Ford's  theatre  on  the  day  of  tlie  assassination. 

Q.  State  as  near  as  you  can  what  time  in  the  day. 

A.  As  near  as  I  can  impress  it  upon  my  mind  it  was  within  half  an  hour  of 
twelve  o'clock,  when  I  entered  the  building. 

Q.  After  entering  the  theatre,  state  if  your  attention   was  directed  by  any- 
thing you  saw  going  on  in  one  of  the  private  boxes. 

A.  1  went  in  merely  to  look  at  the  theatre.  I  went  up  the  steps  to  the  sec- 
ond floor ;  went  down  in  front  where  the  circle  was,  to  look  upon  the  stage ; 
whilst  there  I  saw  one  of  the  box  doors  open  a  little  and  shut.  I  was  anxious 
to  see  from  that  point  of  view,  and  supposing  some  one  was  in  there,  having 
heard  some  one  stepping  about,  I  went  down  to  the  box  and  looked  out 
from  that  point.  As  1  approached  the  box  whoever  was  in  there  walked  away 
out  of  the  box,  and  I  entered  and  looked  from  that  point  on  the  stage.  I  had 
been  looking  there  about  a  minute  or  two  when  the  same  person,  I  su[)pose, 
who  went  out  of  the  box  returned  and  spoke  to  me.  He  said  he  was  connected 
with  the  theatre.  We  then  had  a  few  words  together,  when  my  attention  was 
again  drawn  to  the  scenery  on  the  stage.  They  had  a  curtain  down  that  had 
recently  been  painted,  I  believe,  and  I  stood  there  looking  at  that.  Thon  I 
heard  this  man  behind  me  doing  something.  In  turning  around  to  see  what  it 
was  he  was  doing — I  supposed  he  was  looking  down  as  I  was — I  noticed  that 
he  had  a  piece  of  wood  ;  whether  he  had  it  put  in  under  his  coat  or  was  taking 
it  out  I  cannot  say.  The  piece  of  wood  was  about  three  feet  long  and  about 
as  wide  as  my  two  fingers — maybe  a  little  more  in  the  centre — slanting  a  little 
towards  each  end  from  the  centre.  As  I  turned  round  he  said,  "  The  President 
is  going  to  be  here  to-night."  That  was  the  first  intimation  1  had  of  the  expected 
presence  of  the  President  that  night.  I  said,  "  He  is  ?"  He  then  said,  "  We 
are  going  to  fix  up  the  box  for  his  reception.  I  suppose  there  is  going  to  be  a 
big  crowd  here,  and  we  are  going  to  endeavor  to  arrange  it  so  that  he  won't  be 
disturbed."  He  then  fixed  this  piece  of  wood  into  a  small  hole  in  the  wall  there 
as  large  as  my  thumb.  I  should  think  the  hole  to  be  an  inch  or  an  inch  and  a 
h;ilf  long,  and  about  three-quarters  of  an  inch  wide.  He  placed  one  end  of  this 
stick  in  the  hole  and  it  being  a  little  too  large  took  a  knife  and  whittled  it  down 
a  little.  He  also  gouged  out  the  hole  a  little  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  fit. 
Then  he  placed  it  against  the  panel  of  the  door  across  to  the  wall,  forming  an 
angle.  He  says,  "  The  crowd  may  be  so  immense  as  to  push  the  door  open, 
and  we  want  to  fiisten  it  so  that  this  cannot  be  the  ca.«e."  He  asked  me  if  I 
thought  that  would  hold  it  sufliciently  tight.     I  told  him  I  should  judge  that  it 


502  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

would  hold  a<^ainst  a  great  pres?nre ;  that  a  hole  would  be  punched  through  the 
panel  of  the  door  before  it  would  give  way.  The  wood  was  either  oak  or  of 
North  Carolina  pine.  I  am  not  acquainted  with  that  kind  of  wood,  but  I  am 
rather  of  the  impression  it  was  North  Carolina  pine,  which  is  a  very  tough  wood, 
I  believe.  After  he  had  fitted  that  to  suit  him  Ave  had  a  few  words  more  together. 
I  then  heard  some  one  come  across  the  stage,  back  of  the  curtain. 

The  DrsTRiCT  Attorney.  You  have  spoken  of  this  interview  with  a  per- 
son.    I  will  ask  the  prisoner  to  stand  up  here.     [The  prisoner  did  so  ] 

Q.  State  if  that  is  the  man,  (pointing  to  the  prisoner),  and  whether  you  saw 
him  there  ? 

A.  I  should  judge  that  was  the  man. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  State  all  that  occurred. 

A.  I  thought  it  was  singular  that  the  propi-ietor  of  the  theatre  could  not 
afford  a  lock  for  a  box  of  that  kind.     That  was  what  passed  in  my  mind. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  only  want  what  occurred;  we  do  not  de- 
sire to  have  your  thoughts. 

A.  I  heard  some  one  passing  behind  the  stage  curtain.  This  man  with  whom 
I  had  been  talking  as  soon  as  he  heard  this  noise  behind  went  immediately  out 
of  the  box,  then  a  short  thick  set  man  came  in,  a  man  I  should  judge  a  little 
taller  than  I  am  and  good  deal  stouter.     He  hallooed  for  some  one. 

Q.  Who  hallooed  1 

A.  This  man  that  came  in.  He  says,  "  halloo,  halloo,  Ned,"  or  Dick,  I  don't 
know  which.  I  think  however,  it  was  Ned.  "  Halloo,  Ned,  come  here,  bring 
out  them  things  ;"  but  the  man  did  not  answer  that  he  was  hallooing  for.  He 
repeated  the  call  some  three  or  four  times,  may  be  more.  Finally  I  heard  some 
one  say,  "  Halloo,"  away  down  back  by  the  curtain,  he  said  "  come  here  right 
off,"  or  something  to  that  effect.  Then  the  man  came  up  stairs.  Where  it  was 
I  don't  know,  it  was  back  of  this  box  leading  from  off  towards  the  stage.  I 
think  he  had  one  of  these  black  satchels  about  eighteen  inches  long  with  some- 
thing in  it.  This  thick  set  man  says  to  him,  "  We  are  behind  time."  He  said 
that  they  had  not  heard  that  the  President  was  going  to  be  there  until  about 
an  hour  before,  and  that  they  had  but  a  very  short  time  in  which  to  fix  up  for 
the  occasion.  He  says  to  this  slim  man,  "  Go  down  to  my  oflice  "  (or  room,  I 
don't  know  which  he  said,)  "  and  bring  up  that  big  easy  chair,"  and  I  think  he 
said  big  rocking  chair.  The  man  replied  that  he  did  not  think  he  could  carry 
it  it  was  so  heavy.  This  other  man  replied,  "  Oh,  yes,  you  can  carry  it ;"  and 
I  think  he  told  him  that  there  was  some  one  down  there  who  would  lielp  him. 
Anyhow  he  went  and  brought  it. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  prisoner  1     Was  he  there  during  the  whole  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  he  went  out  before  they  came  into  the  box. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  do  not  want  you  to  state  anything  that  occur- 
red after  he  left. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Oh,  we  don't  object. 

The  District  At'I'orney.  But  we  don't  care  about  having  anything  ex- 
cept what  was  said  in  his  presence. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q,.  What  time  of  day  do  you  say  this  was  ? 

A.  I  should  judge  it  was  between  11  and  12  o'clock.  I  should  think  it  was 
about  half  past  eleven,  from  other  occurrences  I  know  of  that  happened.  I 
remember  that  shortly  after  I  left  there  I  looked  at  my  Avatch  and  it  wa^s  then 
either  five  minutes  of  twelve  or  five  minutes  past  twelve,  I  do  not  know  Avhich  ; 
but  I  know  that  the  bells  rung  for  twelve  o'clock,  and  I  looked  at  my  watch  to 
see  how  it  agreed  Avith  the  time. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  503 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there  altogether  ? 
A.  I  must  have  beeu  there  about  half  an  hour. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there  with  these  people  fixing  the  box  after  this  man 
went  away? 

A.  They  went  out  and  came  in  once  or  twice  themselves.  I  was  there  but  a 
few  minutes  after  they  came  there  the  last  time. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  there  after  the  prisoner  went  away  ? 

A.  He  went  out  and  in  the  box  two  or  three  times  while  I  was  there. 

Q.  The  last  time  after  he  went  away  ? 

A.  I  should  think  about  fifteen  minutes  ;  maybe  not  so  long  as  that. 

Q.  Then  were  you  there  about  fifteen  minutes  wheu  they  came  to  fix  the 
chairs  and  so  on  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Yoii  were  there  about  fifteen  minutes  before  that  time  1 

A.  I  should  think  somewhere  in  that  neighboroood. 

Q.  What  became  of  the  man  who  was  there  when  you  first  went  in  ? 

A.  As  I  approached  the  box  this  man,  whoever  he  was — I  only  got  a  glimpse 
of  him  as  he  went  from  the  box — went  out.  I  went  down  in  the  box  and  was 
looking  on  to  the  stage  when  he  returned  and  spoke  to  me.  I  supposed  it  was 
the  same  man,  but  I  cannot  say  positively  whether  it  was  or  not. 

Q.  How  long  after  this  man  went  out  of  the  box  the  lirst  time,  wheu  you 
caught  a  glimpse  of  him — how  long  before  the  prisoner  came  in  ? 

A.  I  should  think  it  was  not  over  from  three  to  five  minutes. 

Q.  You  stood  by  and  saw  him  fit  this  thing  in  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  talked  freely  to  you  about  it? 

A.  He  told  me  what  I  have  said. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  coat  had  he  on  ? 

A.  He  had  on  a  black  coat. 

Q.  What  you  call  a  frockcoat  ? 

A.  A  frockcoat,  I  think. 

Q.  Was  it  long  enough  for  that  stick  to  be  stuck  away  under  it  ? 

A.  I  don't  know  how  far  the  stick  was  up  under  it.  He  held  it  in  this  way 
[describing  the  position.] 

Q.  Did  he  have  anything  on  his  head? 

A.  I  think  he  had  on  a  small  black  hat — what  is  called  a  jockey  hat,  I  think  I 

Q.  Had  he  any  beard  on  his  face  ? 

A.  I  think  he  had  no  beard — very  little,  if  any. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  he  had  any  or  not  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  for  a  certainty.  I  think,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge, 
very  little.  I  think  it  was  a  kind  of  down  on  the  sides  here,  or  over  his  lips. 
I  cannot  say  which. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  color  of  it  ? 

A.  It  was  of  a  very  light  color,  ^fter  he  spoke  of  being  an  actor  I  took 
more  notice  of  the  man,  thinking  what  kind  of  an  actor  he  would  be. 

Q.  How  much  light  was  there  in  that  place  ? 

A.  Well,  I  do  not  know.     There  was  quite  as  much  as  there  is  here. 

Q.  Enongh  to  enable  you  to  distinguish  persons  down  on  the  stage  very 
plainly  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  if  I  could  see  anybody  there. 

Q.  Was  it  so  light  that  you  could  see  that  picture  on  the  scenery  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  standing  Avhei  you  first  heard  this  noise  in  the  b ix  ? 

A.  Near  the  circle  ;  about  half  way  down  where  it  goes  below.  I  was  in  the 
circle  looking  down  toward  the  stage. 

Q.  Right  opponte  the  middle  of  the  stage? 


50  1:  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  there  could  you  distinguish  persons  on  the  stage  and  in  this  box  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  on  my  way  going  out  when  I  saw  this  box 
door  was  open  and  shut,  or  whether  I  was  going  down  from  there  to  get  a  better 
sight.  Which  ever  way  it  was,  I  saw  the  box  door  open  and  shut  a  little  and 
heard  some  person  trampling  there,  and,  as  I  thought,  going  down  to  the  box, 

Q.  Do  you  remember  which  side  of  the  stage  that  box  was  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell  for  a  certainty ;  but  I  can  give  you  my  opinion  of  it. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  there  was  any  box  above  or  any  box  below  this 
one,  or  was  it  on  a  level  with  the  stage  1 

A.  I  did  not  notice  that.     I  think  it  was  above  the  stage. 

Q.  How  near  did  you  stand  to  the  front  of  the  box  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  distance. 

Q.  You  were  looking  at  the  scenery  when  you  were  in  the  box.  How  far 
was  it  to  the  scenery  you  were  looking  at  ] 

A.  It  must  have  been  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet ;  I  do  not  know  the  distance ; 
I  never  measured  it. 

Q.  Were  you  here  when  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  before  the  military  com- 
mission took  place  1 

A.   I  was. 

Q.  Were  you  summoned  as  a  witness  there  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q    When  did  you  first  mention  these  facts  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  mentioned  them  at  all ;  I  might  have  spoken  to  my 
wife  at  the  time  I  went  home  ;  I  spoke  to  my  wife  of  the  fact  that  the  President 
was  expected  at  the  theatre  that  night,  and  she  made  some  remark  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  not  a  very  good  place  for  the  President  to  be. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  ask  you  about  that,  but  as  to  when  you  first  commu- 
nicated the  facts  you  have  here  stated. 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  ever  spoke  of  them,  unless  I  might  have  mentioned 
them  to  my  wife. 

Q.  How  did  they  get  to  find  out  you  knew  it  ? 

A.  I  addressed  a  line  to  the  Attorney  General,  I  think,  to  the  effect  that  I 
knew  something  that  I  supposed  would  be  of  account — whether  in  fovor  of  the 
prisoner  or  against  him,  I  did  not  know.     I  had  not  then  seen  the  prisoner, 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  I  wrote  it  a  week  ago  last  Sunday,  but  I  did  not  send  it  at  the  time  I 

wrote  it. 

Q.  Up  to  that  time,  so  far  as  you  recollect,  you  did  not  mention  it  to  any- 
body ?  .,.,.. 

A,  Not  that  I  recollect,  unless  to  my  wife  on  the  day  of  the  assassination 
on  going  home  from  the  theatre,  and  I  do  not  know  as  I  spoke  to  her  even  then 

about  it.  r  3  1, 

Q.  You  say  you  did  not  know  whclher  it  would  be  of  an  advantage  to  the 
o-overument  or  the  prisoner,  as  you  had  not  seen  h;m  since '? 

A,  Not  to  know  him. 

Q.  Did'nt  you  read  the  evidence  at  the  conspiracy  trials  1 

A,  The  greater  share  of  it. 

Q,  You  knew  they  were  trying  to  find  out  something  about  the  fixing  of  that 

bar  ]  1  •     1       T 1  1,  4- 

A.  I  read  that  there  was  a  man  who  gave  that  evidence  in,  but  1  knew  what 

he  said  about  it  was  of  no  account  at  all. 

Q.  Did  not  you  know  they  were  trying  to  find  out  who  fixed  that  bar  ? 

A.  1  believe  that  I  did  read  that  that  man  did  see  that  bar  fixed,  but  I  do  not 
know  what  the  evidence  is  at  present. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  f;05 

Q.  You  never  told  anybody  then  of  what  you  had  seen  at  that  time,  or  what 
you;  ould  prove  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  did  ;  I  did  not  think  it  of  any  account  at  that  time. 
By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  You  say  you  recollect  these  incidents  and  you  wrote  a  letter  to  me  about 
them  1 

A.  I  wrote  it  to  the  Attorney  G-eneral  or  the  District  Attorney;  do  not  know 
what  yonr  position  is  in  particular. 

Q.  And  you  then  came  to  the  court  ? 

A.  I  came  after  being  summoned. 

Q.  Did  you  know  the  prisoner  as  soon  as  you  saw  him  ? 

A.  I  knew  this  to  be  the  man  the  first  time  I  saw  him. 

Q.  You  say  that  the  prisoner,  in  the  course  of  this  conversation  that  you  have 
detailed  to  the  jury,  stated  that  he  was  an  actor? 

A.  He  said  he  was  connected  with  the  theatre. 

Q.  When  he  made  that  remark  was  there  anything  peculiar  about  his  face 
that  attracted  your  attention  ? 

A  I  thought,  after  looking  at  the  man — I  generally  take  a  good  square  look 
at  a  man  if  I  take  any  notice  of  him  at  all — I  say,  I  thought,  after  looking  at  the 
man,  that  he  might  learn  things  pretty  easily,  but  he  would  not  make  much  of 
an  actor;  he  had  not  much  expression  in  his  face,  which  I  always  thought  that 
vocation  demanded.  He  was  very  wide  through  the  top  of  the  head,  and  had 
what  I  call  "lantern  jaws  "  running  down  pretty  thin  and  meagre,  which  would 
not  give  him  a  groat  deal  of  expression  as  an  actor.  This  is  what  passed  in  my 
mind  at  the  time. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  about  writing  a  letter  to  the  District  Attorney. 
Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  at  any  time  after  you  wrote  that  letter  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  since. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  1 

A.  I  have  seen  him  in  the  ante-room  here  and  other  places,  and  whilst  pass- 
ing backward  and  forward  through  the  halls. 

Q.  Didn't  you  know  he  was  District  Attorney? 

A.  I  did  not;  I  knew  he  was  one  of  the  lawyers  connected  with  this  trial. 
What  position  he  held  I  did  not  know. 

Q.  Did  you  hold  conversation  with  any  one  else  ? 

A.  I  held  conversation  with  this  young  man  here  (pointing  to  Mr.  Wilson, 
assistant  district  attorney.)  I  did  not  know  what  his  position  was.  He  said 
he  was  connected  with  this  prosecution. 

Q    Did  you  have  conversation  with  anybody  else  ? 

A.  I  spoke  something  to  my  wife  about  it,  and  she  remarked  she  guessed  I 
had  better  have  held  my  tongue. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  anybody  else  except  your  wife  and  those  whom  you 
have  named  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember  of. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  (Good  humoredly  :)  Did  you  talk  to  this  young  man  ?  (Pointing  to  Mr. 
Pierrepont,  of  counsel  for  the  prosecution.) 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  talked  when  he  was  by  at  the  time  ;  there  was  one  who  came 
into  the  room  where  we  were  with  some  letters,  I  believe. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  The  three  gentlemen  here  and  your  wife  are  the  only  persons  you  have 
spoken  of  in  regard  to  this  matter  ? 

33 


£06  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.   SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Describe  the  appearance  of  this  party  that  you  say  said  he  was  an  actor 

A.  He  said  he  was  connected  with  the  theatre.  I  supposed,  of  course,  he 
was  an  actor. 

Q.  Did  not  you  say  he  had  a  hat  on  ] 

A.  He  had  one  of  these  little  jockey  hats  which  just  cover  the  crown  of  the 
head,  and  hardly  that. 

By  a  Juror : 
Q.  Where  did  we  understand  you  to  say  this  person  went  who  left  the  hox 
as  you  were  approaching  it  ? 

A.  He  walked  out  back  as  I  approached  the  box,  but  returned  very  quick. 

Q.  Did  he  appear  to  go  away,  to  leave  the  box  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  left  the  box  ;  I  just  got  a  glimpse  of  his  back  as  I  entered. 

Q.  He  appeared  to  leave  the  box  entirely  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  He  came  back  with  this  stick  under  his  coat  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  the  stick  under  his  coat  or  not ;  I  do  not 
know  where  he  had  it. 

Q.  Did  the  stout  man  appear  to  go  off  in  the  same  direction  in  which  the 
other  man  came  up  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  sounded  like  it. 

By  a  Juror : 
Q.  Have  you  seen  the  stick  that  you  have  described,  since  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  it  was  slanting  at  both  ends? 

A.  It  was  a  little  bevelled  at  each  end  from  the  centre.  I  remember  that  it 
was  of  a  shape  to  stand  a  good  deal  of  pressure. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  the  hole  in  the  wall  was  about  as  big  as  your  thumb  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  about  as  wide  as  my  thumb,  and  about  an  inch  or  au  inch  and 
a  half  long.     It  was  doved  right  in  the  plastering. 

Q.  And  that  stick  was  made  to  fit  into  that  1 

A.  He  whittled  the  stick  a  little,  and  then,  I  think,  took  and  gouged  the  hole 
m  the  Avail  a  little.  Then  he  placed  the  other  end  against  the  panel  of  the  door, 
as  I  supposed,  to  try  the  length  of  it. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON  SESSION. 
David  H.  Bates — age,  twenty-six  years — sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrbpont  : 

Q.  Look  at  these  papers,  (two  letters  of  the  prisoner  to  witness  Weichman, 
dated  respectively  November  12,  and  September  21,  1864,  with  the  card  of 
Booth  and  card  of  Surratt,  heretofore  placed  in  evidence,)  and  say  Avhether  you 
have  seen  them  before. 

A.  I  have  seen  the  card  signed  Booth,  and  the  two  letters  signed  Surratt ;  I 
have  not  seen  the  card  signed  Surratt. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  court  and  ju'ry  how  you  came  into  possession  of  that 
letter?  (Lefer  directed  to  A.  G.  Atzcrodt,  Washington,  D.  C,  postmarked 
New  York,  May  15,  after  the  assassination.) 

A.  I  first  saw  this  letter  in  the  War  Department  mail  shortly  after  this  date. 
I  have  no  distinct  memory  as  to  the  exact  date. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  507 

Q.  Did  yon  put  any  mark  on  the  envelope? 

A.   I  put  on  the  upper  left-hand  corner  the  initials  "E.  L.  S." 
Q.  Do  you  find  them  there  now] 

A.  It  was  in  pencil  and  has  been  erased ;   I  can  see  it,  however,  and  that  it 
is  in  ray  handwriting. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  me  where  you  were  when  you  opened  that  envelope  ? 

A.  I  did  not  open  it. 

Q.  Was  it  opened  in  your  presence? 

A.   I  do  not  think  it  was  opened  in  my  presence. 

Q.  What  do  you  remember  about  it  1 

A.  I  remember  that  it  came  in  the  mail,  and  that  I  put  the  initials  "E.  L.  S." 
in  the  corner,  in  order  that  it  might  go  to  the  care  of  E.  L.  Stanton. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  it  ? 

A.  I  examined  it. 

Q.  Look  at  the  paper  and  see  if  it  has  had  anything  done  to  it ;   whether  the 
paper  is  in  its  natural  state, 

A.   I  see  the  paper  is  not  as  it  was  when  I  saw  it  first. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  handwriting  the  letter  is  in  ?. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  until  witness  states  his  information  on 
the  subject  of  handwriting.) 

]\Ir.  PiERREPONT.  I  will  go  fully  into  that. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

A.  jMy  occupation  is  that  of  a  telegraph  operator. 

Q.  Were  you  engaged  in  the  War  Department  at  any  time  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  War  Department  telegraph  office — in  charge  thereof — during 
the  war. 

Q.  How  many  years  ? 

A.  Over  five  years  ;   I  went  there  first  in  May,  1861,  and  left  in  August,  1S66. 

Q.  What  were  your  duties  there  ? 

A.  During  all  that  time,  except,  probably,  at  first,  I  was  in  charge  of  the  office, 
as  chief  operator  or  manager. 

Q.  What  duties  does  that  position  involve  ? 

A.  I  was  generally  in  charge  of  the  office,  and  forwarded  telegrams ;  I  also 
had  charge,  from  June,  1862,  until  I  left,  of  cipher  telegrams. 

Q.  Tell  tlie  court  how  much  experience  you  had  in  that  particular. 

A.  During  that  time  I  deciphered  and  assisted  in  deciphering  a  great  many 
cipher  letters  and  telegrams,  a  great  many  of  which  were  supposed  to  be  in  dis- 
guised handwriting,  and  which  came  to  me  through  being  captured  from  the 
enemy,  from  blockade  runners,  and  in  other  various  ways. 

Q.  Then  what  has  been  your  experience  in  deciphering  and  detecting  hand- 
writing ? 

A.  My  experience  has  been  very  great.  There  has  hardly  been  a  week  but 
I  have  had  the  opportunity  of  deciphering  letters  and  examining  handwriting. 

Q.  In  that  department  of  expert,  what  would  you  say  of  your  experience  and 
your  knowledge?  have  you  great  knowledge  as  an  expert? 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  have. 

Q.  Can  you  ?ay  in  whose  handwriting  that  is?  (letter  directed  to  Atzerodt.) 

A.  1  ought  to  know  it. 

The  court  suggested  the  first  question  sliould  be  Avhether  the  witness  knows 
the  handwriting. 

Q.  What  knowledge  have  you  of  the  handwriting  ?  Give  the  sources  of  your 
inforraadon  ;  whether  you  have  seen  the  party  write,  or  have  seen  writing  you 
know  to  be  his  ] 

Q.  I  have  never  seen  the  party  who  wrote  this  write.  I  have  seen  hand- 
writing signed  by  that  party.  I  believe,  I  know  the  handwriting  of  the  slip  of 
p;iper  before  me,  and  that  it  is  written  by  the  same  party  to  whom' I  refer. 


508  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  was  not  evidence. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  could  state  whether  he  had  ever  seen  the  party 
write,  or  whether  he  had  in  his  possession  letters  acknowledged  by  him  to  be 
in  his  handwriting. 

Witness.  I  have  never  seen  the  party  write. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  received  letters  from  that  party  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  letters  signed  with  his  name  which  he  acknowledged 
to  be  his  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Now  what  is  the  source  of  your  knowledge  of  the  hand- 
writing. 

Mr.  Bradley  asked  whether  it  was  the  intention  to  prove  the  handwriting 
by  comparison  with  other  papers  which  had  been  exhibited  to  witness. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  replied  in  the  aflSrmative. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  question  then  was  whether  the  papers  could  now  be 
introduced  and  the  handwriting  proved  by  comparison  with  other  papers  received 
by  other  parties. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  the  rule  of  law  upon  that  subject  was  very  well  settled 
in  England  and  in  this  country.  He  expected  to  prove  the  handwriting  of  this 
letter  by  comparison  with  the  letters  shown  witness,  dated  November  12  and 
September  21,  1864. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  witness  Weichman  had  sworn  he  believed  these 
papers  to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  Surratt.  The  question  before  the  court  was 
whether  a  comparison  of  these  letters,  under  these  ciicumstances,  could  be  made 
by  the  witness. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  that  if  witness  was  in  this  manner  allowed  to  identify,  of 
course  the  defence  would  be  permitted  to  bring  evidence  to  rebut  the  testimony 
of  Weichman,  identifying  the  handwriting  of  the  letters  as  the  handwriting  of 
the  prisoner. 

The  Court  replied  in  the  affirmative  and  said  he  would  receive  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  defence  reserved  an  exception  to  the  ruling. 

Q.  Now  state  in  whose  handwriting  the  interior  of  that  letter  directed  to 

Atzerodt  is  ? 

A.  I  believe  it  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Surratt,  the  prisoner. 
-    Q.  Look  at  the  envelope  and  state  in  whose  handwriting  the  direction  is,  if 
you  know? 

A.  The  same. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  then  read  in  evidence  the  envelope,  as  follows  : 

"  A.  J.  Atzerodt,  Washington,  D.  C  ; "  postmarked  "  N.  Y.,  May  15,  1865." 

Q.  When  did  this  come  into  your  possession  ? 

A.  About  May  16  or  17,  1865. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  then  read  in  evidence  the  contents  of  the  envelope  as  follows : 

««  S.  P. C.  R. all  right no  hurry Tony." 

Q.  So  far  as  you  know  I  suppose,  Atzerodt  did  not  ever  receive  this  letter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  jury,  from  your  experience,  whether  or  not  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  dieguise  one's  handwriting  ? 

A.  It  is  exceedingly  difficult. 

Q.  You  may  give  the  reason.     Is  there  anything  that  belongs  to  every  man's 
hand  as  there  is  to  the  expression  of  his  face,  walk,  &c. 

Mr.  Bradley.     That  is  not  a  proper  question. 

!Mr.  PiERREPONT  to  wituess.     Give  your  own  reason. 

Witness.     I  cannot  readily  give  the  reason.     I  know  it  is  so  from  my  own 
experience  in  handwritings. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  509 

Q.  Is  there  something  about  every  man's  hand  pecuh'ar  to  himself? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  may  look  at  this  letter  which  has  previously  been  read  in  evidence, 
(signed  Charles  Selby,)  and  state  whether,  in  your  opinion,  the  writing  is  in  a 
natural  hand,  or  in  a  disguised  hand. 

A.  I  consider  it  in  a  disguised  hand. 

Q.  Have  you  any  knowledge  in  whose  hand  it  is  ;  if  so,  state  from  what  you 
derive  your  knowledge. 

A.  I  have  such  a  knowledge. 

Q.  Now  tell  how  you  derive  it  ? 

A.  From  a  comparison  with  the  two  telegrams  which  I  have  in  my  hand  now. 

Q.  Who  are  the  telegrams  signed  by  ? 

A.  They  are  signed  by  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  me  in  whose  handwriting  the  Charles  Selby  letter  is  ? 

A.  In  that  of  J.  Wilkes  Booth. 

Cross  examined  : 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Booth  write  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  of  his  writing,  except  these  two  telegrams  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  remember. 

Q.  And  from  those  two  telegrams  you  say  you  take  this  to  have  been  written 
by  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  . 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  what  feature  of  resemblance  there  is  between  them  ? 

A.  There  is  a  resemblance  between  the  capital  letter  "  L,"  in  the  address, 
"Dear  Lewis,"  and  in  the  capital  "  L,"  in  O'Laughlin's  name  in  the  telegram. 
I  also  notice  a  resemblance  in  the  last  stroke  of  the  "  L,"  which  is  made  straight 
out,  or  nearly  so. 

Q.  You  see  a  resemblance  in  the  capital  "  L's,"  and  in  the  tail  of  the  "  L  " 
coming  out  straight;  tell  me  of  any  other  feature  of  resemblance? 

A.  Another  feature  is  in  the  capital  "  E,"  in  "  Esq.,"  in  the  letter,  and  iu 
"  Exeter,"  in  the  telegram ;  also  in  the  word  "  English." 

Q.  Tell  me  wherein  they  are  alike  ? 

A.  They  are  alike  in  their  resemblance.  I  do  not  know  any  particular  mark 
in  either,  on  which  I  could  give  an  opinion.     They  only  resemble  each  other. 

Q.  You  think  they  resemble  each  other  in  their  general  features  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  if  the  two  "  E's,"  to  which  you  have  referred  in  the  tele- 
gram, stand  as  an  independent  letter  without  a  line  connecting  them  with  the 
adjoining  letter,  or  whether  they  are  connected  and  fall  apart  ? 

A.  They  are  disconnected. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  the  "  E,"  in  the  word  "Esq.,"  is  a  disconnected  let- 
ter, or  whether  it  is  connected  with  the  adjoining  letter  in  the  same  word  ? 

A.  That  is  disconnected.  The  pen  was  lifted  when  the  second  letter  of  the 
word  was  formed. 

Q.  Do  you  notice  any  other  feature  of  resemblance  1 

A.  I  notice  in  the  Selby  letter  also,  two  other  words  commencing  with  a  capi- 
tal "  L,"  bearing  the  same  peculiarity  which  I  have  observed  in  the  "  L's"  of  the 
Booth  telegram.  I  observe  also  that  the  capital  "T,"  in  the  telegram,  has  the 
same  peculiarity — that  in  this  the  capital  "  H  "  has  a  sort  of  catch  as  the  pen 
touches  the  paper  first. 

Q.  Then  you  notice  the  resemblance  in  the  "  T,"  the  "L's,"  and  the  "  J]'s;" 
is  the  resemblance  in  these  letters  the  means  by  which  you  identify  the  hand- 
writings ? 


510  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  From  this  resemblance,  and  more  from  the  general  character  of  the  hand- 
writinp^,  which  I  cannot  describe  from  any  distinct  peculiarity. 

Q.  Was  this  letter  open  when  it  came  into  your  possession  1 

A.  No,  sir.     It  was  sealed,  in  the  War  Department  mail. 

Q.  I  suppose  it  was  put  into  that  mail  because  Atzerodt  was  in  charge  of  the 
government  at  that  time  1 

A.  That  was  the  supposition  I  had. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  see  the  enclosure  of  that  envelope  ? 

A.  I  saw  it  the  same  day  that  it  came  to  the  office. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  opened  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

William  S.  Thompson,  sworn  and  examined  : 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  1 

A.  Druggist,  corner  of  Fifteenth  street  and  New  York  avenue. 

Q.  How  long  has  your  store  been  there  ? 

A.  Since  1859. 

Q.  Was  Herold  there  as  a  clerk  for  you  ?  I  mean  Herold  who  was  tried  as 
one  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  W^ill  you  tell  the  jury  from  what  date  to  what  date  he  was  your  clerk  ? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  whether  it  was  in  1862  or  1863.  He  came  with  me  about 
the  1st  of  March,  and  was  discharged  about  the  4th  of  July  following.  I  do  not 
remember  which  year. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  1 

A.  1  could  ascertain  by  reference  to  my  book. 

Q.  W^ill  you  examine  and  give  the  dates  subsequently  ? 

A.  I  will  do  so. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  handwriting? 

A.  I  am  tolerably  frimiliar  with  his  handwriting. 

Q.  Will  you  state  Avhether  President  Lincoln  during  the  time  he  was  there, 
or  before  or  after,  obtained  his  medicines  of  you  ? 

A.  He  was  in  the  habit  of  getting  his  medicines  there,  and  I  suppose  lie  must 
have  got  some  during  the  time  Herold  was  there. 
^  This  evidence  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  not  coming  up  to  the  rule. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  supposed  witness  imderstood  the  reason  for  which 
he  was  called,  and  desired  him  to  return  to  his  store,  examine  his  books,  refresh 
his  memory,  and  report  again  on  Friday  morning. 

William  Norton,  residence  Charlotte  Hall,  St.  Mary's  county,  Maryland, 
sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  When  (lid  you  come  to  this  city  ? 
A.   In  1861. 

Q.  Do  you  live  in  this  city  now  ? 
A.  No,  sir.     I  live  at  Charlotte  Hall. 
Q.  When  did  you  come  here  as  a  witness  first? 
A.  Two  weeks  ago  last  Monday. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anyone  connected  with  the  examination  of  this  case  ? 
A.  1  saw  Mr.  W^ilson,  and  Mr.  Carriugton  ;  also   Judge  Holt,  and  Colonel 
Barr. 

Q.  Will  you  state  where  you  lived  in  the  month  of  April,  1865  ? 
A.  At  T.  B ,  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II     SURRATT.  511 

I 

Q.  On  the  lotli,  14tli,  and  15th  of  April  who  did  you  see  connected  with  the 
prisoners  in  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 
A.  None  of  them. 
Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  ? 
A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Herold  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Surratt  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  anything  to  do  with  any  arms,  or  did  you  see  any  arms  ? 
A.  Not  at  that  time. 
Q.  When  did  you  see  any  arms  ? 
A.  I  saw  some  arms  in  the  month  of  March,  1865. 
Q.  Where  did  you  see  them  ? 
A.  I  saw  them  at  T.  B. 
Q.  Who  brought  them  there  ? 
A.  David  Herold  brought  them  there. 
Q.  What  did  he  bring  '/ 
A.  He  brought  some  guns. 
Q.  How  many  1 
A.  Two. 

Q.  Did  he  bring  anything  else  ? 
A.  He  bi'ought  two  carbines. 
Q.  Anything  else  ? 
A.  He  brought  a  pistol. 
Q.  What  else  ? 
A.  He  had  a  knife  with  him. 
Q.  Any  ammunition  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  What  else  ? 
A.  He  had  a  rope  with  him. 
Q.  Any  other  thing  ? 
A.  He  had  a  wrench. 
Q.  Anything  more  1 
A.  He  had  a  horse  and  buggy. 
Q.  What  time  in  the  day  did  he  come  ? 
A.  He  came  in  the  night. 
Q.  What  time  in  the  night  ? 
A.  About  8  o'clock. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  with  the  things  he  brought  ? 
A.  He  took  them  out  of  his  buggy. 
Q.  What  then  1 

A.  I  carried  them  into  the  bar-room. 
Q.  Then  what  did  you  do  with  them  ? 
A.  I  did  not  do  anything  more  Avith  them  that  night. 
Q.  Did  you  or  he  do  anything  more  witb  tliem  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  the  next  morning  1 
A.  He  fired  his  pistol  off. 
Q.  Did  he  do  anything  more  ? 
A.  He  went  away  after  breakfast. 

Q.  Did  he  take  the  arms  and  ammunition  all  with  him  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Do  you  know  which  way  he  went  ? 


512  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  He  started  towards  Washington. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  stopped  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  of  these  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  saw  two  carbines,  which  I  supposed  were  the  ones  I  saw  there,  in  the 
provost  marshal's  office,  on  14th  street,  a  few  days  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  Between  the  time  Herold  took  them  away  and  the  time  you  saw  them  in 
the  provost  marshal's  office,  did  you  see  them  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.     The  witness  did  not  pretend  to  iden- 
tify the  carbines  at  all.) 

The  Court  said  he  supposed  they  were  going  on  to  identify  the  carbines. 
Question  repeated. 

A.  I  never  saw  the  carbines  after  Herold  took  them  off  until  I  saw  two  car- 
bines in  the  provost  marshal's  office. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  pistol  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  :' 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  ammunition  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  knife  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  rope  or  the  wrench,  or  any  one  of  the  things  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Or  the  horse  and  buggy  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  next  see  Herold  after  the  night  he  was  there  with  the 
arms  1 

A.  I  have  never  seen  him  since. 

Q.  Who  was  with  himi 

A.  He  was  by  himself. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  was  going  1 

A.  He  said  he  was  going  down  to  Benedict  ducking. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  he  was  going  to  do  with  the  arms  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  told  you  nothing  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  day  did  he  go  towards  Washington  1 

A,  It  was  after  breakfast,  between  seven  and  eight  o'clock. 
^    Q.  How  far  was  your  place  from  Surrattsville  1 

A.  Five  miles. 

Q.  Did  he  go  in  the  direction  of  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say.     He  started  towards  Washington.     There  are  roads  that 
turn  off  after  leaving  T.  B. 

Q.  Are  they  both  in  the  same  direction  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  the  roads  start  together,  and  then  they  fork  off. 

Q.  Do  you  know  which  fork  he  took  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  Herold  say  to  you  about  Surratt? 

A.  He  asked  me  if  Mr.  Surratt  had  been  there.     I  told  him  he  had  not.     He 
said  he  expected  he  would  be  there. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  at  what  time  he  expected  Surratt  there  ? 

A.  He  said  he  expected  him  there  that  night. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  night  was  it  that  he  said  that  ? 

A.  That  was  shortly  after  he  came  there. 

Q.  Did  Surratt  come  that  night  ] 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  that  night  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  513 

A.  No,  sir 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Surratt  after  that  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  on  the  3d  of  April,  1865. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  At  T.  B. 

Q.  Which  way  did  he  come  from  ? 

A.  He  came  from  down  the  country. 

Q.  South,  west,  or  east] 

A.  Southeast  course. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  came  from  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  was  going  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  after  the  3d  of  April,  1865  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  had  he  with  him — what  arms  ? 

A.  I  did  uot  see  any. 

Q.  Was  he  on  horseback,  on  foot,  or  no  the  stage  ? 

A.  He  came  on  the  8ta£re. 

Q.   What  time  did  he  leave  on  the  3d  of  April? 

A.  He  might  have  left  at  half  past  two  or  three  o'clock. 

Q.  What  stage  ? 

A.  The  Leonardtowu  Washington  stage. 

Q.  Was  that  a  stage  which  went  to  Washington  direct  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  that  the  last  you  saw  of  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  at  that  time  of  what  he  was  going  to  do  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  he  had  been? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  had  been  to  Richmond? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Mr.  Bradley  said  it  was  time  to  interrupt  this  examination.  The  general 
question  had  been  answered,  and  these  questions  were  most  direct  and  leading. 

Mr,  PiERREPO.NT  said  they  were  direct  and  leading,  and  the  reason  was  ob- 
vious. 

Objections  overruled. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  about  Richmond  ? 

Question  objected  to  for  the  same  reason. 

The  Court  said  as  a  proper  mode  of  testing  whether  the  question  was  leading 
or  not  he  could  not  himself  tell  what  answer  the  counsel  sought,  and  if  he  could 
not  probably  the  witness  could  not. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  ? 

A.  He  paid  me  two  dollars  and  a  half.  There  was  no  special  conversation 
that  I  remember. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  ? 

A.  Nothing  that  I  can  remember, 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  had  two  dollars  and  a  half  for  you? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  asked  him  for  it. 

Q.  How  long  had  he  owed  it  to  you  ? 

A.  A  short  time;  two  or  three  months; 

Q.  Was  he  there  two  months  before  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  two  months.     He  was  there  that  winter. 


514  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing  there  ? 

A.  No  particular  business. 

Q,  What  general  business? 

A.  He  was  acquainted  there. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  him  with  there  ? 

A.  He  was  there  with  himself. 

Q.  Was  he  entirely  alone  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  talking  to  nobody  at  all  ? 

A.  He  talked  with  everybody  when  he  came. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  there  "? 

A.  He  staid  there  over  night. 

Q.  Was  that  what  he  owed  you  for  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  is  what  you  collected? 

A.  I  collected  a  bar  bill  and  house  bill. 

Q.   Who  staid  there  that  night? 

A.  Nobody  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  there  no  traveller  in  the  house  ? 

A.  There  may  have  been. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anybody  except  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  with  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Atzerodt  has  been  with  him.  I  saw  Atzerodt  with  him  there. 
I  did  not  see  them  come  together  or  go  away  together ;  I  saw  them  in  the  bar- 
room together. 

David  H.  Bates  recalled  and  further  cross-examined. 

By  Mr.  Mkrrick  : 

Q.  Look  at  the  register  now  shown  you,  (arrival  book  of  St.  Lawrence  Hall, 
Montreal,  Canada,  1865,)  April  6,  and  also  on  the  18th,  and  see  if  you  can  find 
any  handwriting  with  which  you  are  familiar. 

A.  I  recognize  two  names. 

Q.  What  are  they  ? 

A.  The  first  is  Frank  Druramond,  and  the  next  is  John  Harrison,  Washing- 
ton, D.  C,  on  April  6. 

Q.  Is  either  of  these  in  disguised  handwriting  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  also  find  the  handwriting  of  the  same  men  on  April  18, 

Q,.  Read  the  entire  entry. 

A.  On  the  18th  the  entry  is  simply  John  Harrison;  on  the  6th  it  is  John 
Harrison,  Washington,  D.  C.     Neither  of  these  is  a  disguised  signature. 

By  Mr.  Peirrrpont  : 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  in  whose  handwriting  these  entries  are  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is  the  handwriting  of  Surratt,  the  prisoner. 

The  district  attorney  stated  that  the  prosecution  Avould  be  able  to  close  its 
evidence  to-day  if  the  witnesses  were  all  here ;  that  two  or  three  who  were  in 
the  city  did  not  answer,  and  one  sent  for  to  New  York  had  not  arrived.  He 
proposed,  thei*efore,  that  the  court  should  now  take  a  recess.  The  court  ac- 
cordingly took  a  recess  until  Friday  next  at  half  past  ten  a.  m. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  515 

July  5,  1867. 

The  court  met  at  10|  o'clock  a.  m. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  proposed  to  read  from  and  put  iu  evidence  an  almanac  for 
the  year  186-5,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  when  the  moon  rose  in  Washington 
on  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  April,  and  the  condition  of  the  moon  as  to  fulness 
[Mr.  P.  held  iu  his  hand  a  copy  of  the  Tribune  Almanac  for  the  year  1865.] 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  the  reception  of  the  copy  produced  in  evidence  as 
not  authentic. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said,  of  course  it  would  be  subject  to  any  correction  that 
might  be  made,  if  any  could  be  made. 

The  court  remarked  that  anything  contained  in  an  almanac  admitted  to  be 
genuine  and  authentic  could  be  received  in  evidence,  and  suggested  that  the 
American  Almanac,  prepared  at  the  State  Department,  would  be  received  as 
authentic. 

Mr.  Bradley  suggested  the  report  of  the  Smithsonian  Institute. 

After  further  conversation  between  the  counsel  and  the  court,  it  was  deter- 
mined to  send  for  a  copy  of  the  American  Almanac. 

John  C.  Thompson,  residence  T.  B.,  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland, 
sworn  and  examined  : 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  Have  you  been  in  the  city  during  this  trial  1 

A.  Yes,  !>ir. 

Q.  Have  you  been  examined  anywhere  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  live  in  the  spring  of  1865  ? 

A.  At  T.  B. 

Q.  What  were  you  doing  there  1 

A.  I  was  keeping  a  hotel  there. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  it  1 

A.  The  "  T.  B.  Hotel." 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  that  happened  there  at  thut  time  connected 
with  Herold? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  it  was. 

A.  Herold  came  there  some  time  in  March ;  I  do  not  know  what  time  it  was 
in  March,  1865. 

Q.  What  uid  he  bring  with  him  ? 

A.  A  sword,  a  couple  of  carbines,  and  a  couple  of  double-barrel  guns, 

Q.  Anything  else  ? 

A.  I  remember  nothing  except  a  revolver. 

Q.  Nothing  else? 

A.  Nothing  else  that  I  know  of. 

Q.   Who  came  with  him] 

A.  Nobody,  at  all. 

Q.   What  did  he  come  in? 

A.  He  came  in  a  buggy. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  with  those  arms  ? 

A.  He  put  them  in  the  bar-room  until  the  next  morning. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  ? 

A.  He  told  me  he  was  going  down  on  the  Patuxent  river  shooting  ducks. 

Q.  Did  lie  tell  you  he  expected  anybody  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  said  he  ex])ected  John  Surratt  there. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  in  the  night? 

A.  Nothing,  at  all.     He  came  there  about  8  o'clock ;  our  supper  was  over, 


516  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

and  ordered  supper.     Thej  had  supper  prepared  for  liim,  and  he  afterwards 
went  to  bed. 

Q.  Did  Surratt  come  there  that  night  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  happened  the  next  morning  ? 

A.  The  next  morning,  he  got  up,  took  his  guns,  and  came  back  towards  "Wash- 
ington. 

Q.  Do  you  know  which  road  he  took  ;  the  roads  fork  this  side  of  your  place, 
do  they  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  which  way  he  took. 

Q.  Does  one  road  go  to  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  One  road  goes  to  Surrattsville,  and  the  other  to  Piscataway. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  which  road  he  took  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  anybody  go  away  with  him  1 

A.  Not  a  soul. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  knew  him. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  there  1 

A.  The  last  of  February  or  first  of  March,  1865  ;  I  do  not  recollect  which. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Surratt  there  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  him  there,  in  INIarch,  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  there  1 

A.  He  passed  my  nlace  the  3d  of  April. 

Q.  Did  he  stop  ? 

A.  He  stopped  while  the  stage  was  changing  horses. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  with  him  ? 

A.  I  may  have  spoken  to  him.     Do  not  recollect  distinctly.     I  think  I  did 
speak  to  him. 

Q   Did  you  see  Atzerodt  there  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Atzerodt  stop  there,  at  any  time,  at  your  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  never  staid  over  night  at  my  house. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  stay  there  ? 

A.  The  last  time  he  was  there,  he  staid,  I  suppose,  a  half  hour,  or  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour. 

Q.  What  time  was  that  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  date.     It  was  some  time  in  March. 

Q.  After  the  3d  of  April  you  did  not  see  him  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  I  did  ;  I  have  no  recollection  that  I  did. 

Q.  On  the  25ih  of  3Iarch,  do  you  remember  anything  that  occurred  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Surratt  that  day  in  a  buggy  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Q,  On  the  26th  did  you  ? 

A.  1  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  him  ? 

A.  On  the  3d  of  April. 

Q.  Which  way  was  he  going  1 

A.  He  was  going  towards  Washington. 

Q.  Did  you  know  from  what  point  he  came  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  anything  about  it? 

A.  Not  a  word. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  stopped  at  that  time  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  517 

A.  Long  enough  to  change  horses  and  the  passengers  to  get  their  dinner.  I 
suppose  half  an  liour. 

Q.  What  coach  was  it  ? 

A.  The  mail  coach — coach  belonging  to  me. 

Q.  AVhere  did  the  coach  come  from  ? 

A.  The  coach  came  from  Charlotte  Hall.  The  mail  came  from  Leonard  town 
that  morning. 

Q.  Where  from  the  Potomac  was  that  ? 

A.  It  leaves  Briton's  bay. 

Q.  That  bay  runs  into  the  Potomac  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  connects  with  the  Potomac. 

William  S.  Thompson  recalled  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  date  at  which  Herold  was  a  clerk  in  your  store  ? 

A.  From  the  1st  of  March,  1863,  until  the  4th  day  of  July  following. 

Q.  State  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  obtained  his  medicines  there  during  that  time. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   he  did. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Herold  put  up  any  for  him  ? 

A.  I  have  examined  my  books  and  blotter,  to  ascertain,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
whether  Herold  mixed  any  medicines  for  him  during  that  time.  I  find  only 
one  article  charged  by  Herold. 

Q.  Then  you  have  no  other  means  of  knowing. 

[Mr.  Bradley  said  he  could  not  see  the  relevancy  of  this  testimony,  and  de- 
sired it  to  be  received  subject  to  his  objection. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  would  endeavor  to  make  it  relevant.] 

A.  I  have  no  other  means  of  knowing. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Does  it  follow  because  the  charge  was  in  Herold's  handwriting,  that  he 
put  the  medicine  up  ? 

A.  Not  necessarily  ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  at  which  the  medicine  was  put  up  ? 

A.  June  22,  1863 — a  small  vial  of  castor-oil. 

Q.  What  other  clerks  had  you  in  the  store  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  had  two  others — Clinton  M.  Sears  and  Charles  McGlue. 

Q.  Where  is  Sears  at  this  time  ? 

A.  He  is  dead. 

Q.  Where  is  McGlue  1 

A.  He  is  engaged  in  a  store  now  on  Seventh  street,  in  this  city. 

Q.   In  business  for  himself  or  as  a  clerk  ] 

A.  As  a  clerk. 

Q.  For  whom  1 

A.  In  a  drug  store  on  Seventh  street,  opposite  Taylor's,  k(;pt  I  believe  by  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Cassin. 

Andrew  Kaluenbach,  residence  Washington,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 
Q.  Do  you  know  a   place  called  Surrattsville,  in  Prince  George's  county, 
Maryland  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  far  is  it  from  here? 
A.  About  ten  miles  from  the  Navy  Yard  bridge. 
Q.  Do  you  know  John  M.  Lloyd  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  being  there  some  time  in  the  spring  of  1865  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 


518  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  State  if  at  that  time  you  recovered  any  fire-arm  there  ;  and  if  so,  state  the 
circumstances  under  which  you  recovered  it. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  found  a  fire-arm  there ;  I  lived  there  then.  It  was  ahout  the 
25th  of  April,  1865,  or  somewhere  thereabouts.  I  found  it  in  the  partition  be- 
tween the  plastering. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  1 

A.  I  found  a  carbine.     It  had  a  covering  over  it. 

Q.  Describe  in  what  part  of  the  house  it  was. 

A.  It  was  between  the  dining-room,  in  the  main  house,  and  the  kitchen,  wMch 
was  attached  to  the  main  building. 

Q.  Was  it  concealed  ? 

A.  It  was  right  between  the  plastering  in  the  partition  wall. 

Q.  Describe  fully  to  the  jury  the  examination  you  made,  and  what  you  dis- 
covered at  that  time. 

A.  There  were  detectives  there.  I  am  not  certain  what  date  it  was  ;  some- 
where about  the  25th  of  April. 

(This  examination  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  irrelevant,  unless  intended 
to  contradict  the  witness,  Lloyd,  and  the  prosecution  could  not  contradict  its  own 
witnesses. 

The  district  attorney  said  the  witness  need  not  state  what  Mr.  Lloyd  told 
Lim.) 

A.  This  detective  was  there  on  that  night.  He  told  me  there  was  a  fire-arm 
there,  and  said  I  must  find  it.  This  detective  and  myself  went  in  search  of  it, 
and  after  searching  for  it  for  some  time  I  found  it. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  how  you  found  it,  where  it  was  concealed,  and  everything 
about  it. 

A.  I  took  a  hatchet,  knocked  the  plastering  loose,  and  found  it  between  the 
partitions.  After  I  found  it,  I  went  for  this  detective  before  I  removed  it  at  all. 
He  took  it  in  his  possession  and  carried  it  oflf. 

Q.  Who  was  this  detective  1 

A.  His  name  was  George  Cottingham,  a  government  detective,  at  that  time 
stationed  dowu  there. 

Q.  State  liow  it  was  you  happened  to  go  to  that  particular  place,  and  find  it. 

A.  It  was  by  the  direction  of  Mr.  Lloyd. 

Q.  Would  you  know  that  carbine  if  you  were  to  see  it  again? 

A.  I  did  not  examine  it  particularly.  It  had  a  cover  over  it ;  a  light  and  a 
dark  cover. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  cover  off? 

A.  Only  a  part  of  it — enough  to  show  the  breech  of  the  gun. 

Q.  Can  you  say  what  kind  of  a  carbine  it  was  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  name  of  it. 

Q.  How  often  did  it  shoot  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  did  not  examine  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  receive  the  information  from  Mr.  Lloyd  that  the  gun  was 
there  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  but  the  objection  subsequently  with- 
drawn.) 

A.  About  the  25th  of  April. 

Q,  Where  were  you  when  when  you  received  it  ? 

A.  I  was  at  Surrattsville,  at  the  house. 

Q.  In  what  room  1 

A.  I  was  in  the  dining  room  at  that  time,  attending  to  Mr  Lloyd's  fiimily. 
They  were  sick  at  that  time,  and  asked  me  to  attend  to  them  for  Mr.  Lloyd,  iu 
his  absence. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Lloyd  there  at  that  time? 

A.  He  came  there  that  night. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  519 

Q.  Was  Af  r.  Lloyd  in  the  room  at  the  time  you  received  the  information  where 
the  carbine  was  concealed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  was  in  the  room  at  that  time. 

Q.  Look  at  that  carbine,  [carbine  with  cover  on  exhibited  to  witness,]  and 
state  whether  that  is  the  one  you  found. 

A.  That  is  the  one  we  found  ;  or  at  least  the  cover  is  the  one,  and  the  rope. 

Q.  Examine  carefully,  and  see  if  you  can  state  with  certainty. 

A.  I  think  it  is  the  same  one.  It  is  the  same  cover,  the  same  rope,  the  same 
washer,  and  a  similar  gun.     I  could  not  say  it  was  the  same  gun. 

Q.  As  far  as  you  now  recollect  making  an  examination,  does  it  resemble  that 
gun,  in  all  resj)ects  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  similar  gun.     If  it  is  not  the  one,  it  is  one  exactly  like  it. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  a  detective  came  there  that  night — the  25th  of 
April — about  that  time,  and  said  there  was  a  gun  there  tliat  must  be  found. 

A    I  was  informed  that  it  was  secreted  there,  and  he  told  me  I  was  to  find  it. 

Q.  Then  you  got  the  information  from  Mr.  Lloyd  where  you  were  to  look 
for  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And'  then  you  broke  through  the  partition  Avith  a  hatchet  and  found  the 
gun? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  was  the  same  description  of  gun  as  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Abra.m  B.  Olin,  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierbepo.nt  : 

Q.  Were  you  in  Washington  city  on  the  night^of  the  murder  of  the  Pres- 
ident ? 

A.  I  was  here  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  AV^ere  you  at  the  theatre  the  next  morning  after  I 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  at  the  theatre  that  evening,  and  I  was  at  the  theatre,  I 
think,  Sunday  morning.  The  assassination  was  on  Friday  night,  according  to 
my  recollection. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  you  discovered  in  that  box  where  the  President  was 
murdered  ? 

A.  I  perhaps  might  not  improperly  say  that  I  saw  a  report  tliat  the  President 
had  been  shot  through  a  door,  and  I  commenced  taking  preliminary  examina- 
tions in  reference  to  this  matter.  I  went  there  personally,  in  company  with 
Senator  Harris  and  Miss  Harris.  Rathbone,  who  was  with  them  at  tlie  time  of 
the  murder,  was  disabled  by  his  wound  from  going  there.  I  went  there  to  ex- 
amine the  premises  personally  to  be  able  to  understand  as  much  testimony  as  was 
applicable  to  the  particular  transaction.  When  I  got  into  the  theatre,  I  ex- 
amined this  hole  in  the  door.  If  you  can  see  this  panel  (illustrating  by  a  panel 
of  the  desk,)  I  can  represent  it  about  as  well  as  any  other  way  by  saying  that 
it  would  correspond  with  a  hole  placed  right  here,  right  on  the  corner  of  the 
panel.  You  would  scarcely  notice  it  unless  your  attention  was  drawn  to  it. 
Placing  your  eye  to  the  hole,  it  was  about  the  height  a  person  would  occupy 
sitting  in  a  chair  inside.  I  saw  that  it  was  bored  witli  a  gimlet,  and  that  a  pen- 
knife had  been  used  to  take  off  the  rough  surface.  The  shavings  and  chips 
from  that  hole  were  still  on  the  carpet,  which  had  not  been  cleaned,  and  could 
be  seen  as  you  entered  the  box.  I  saw,  too,  that  the  entrance  into  this  box 
from  the  body  of  the  house  was  closed  by  a  bar  when  shut  at  an  angle,  and 


520  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

some  person  had  taken  occasion  to  cut  into  the  plastering  of  the  wall  a  place 
into  which  the  end  fitted  ;  and  with  the  bar  placed  in  it  and  the  other  end  against 
the  door,  any  person  pressing  against  it  from  the  outside,  the  stronger  he  would 
press,  the  tighter  the  fastening  would  become.  The  plastering  cut  from  that 
hole  was  also  lying  at  that  time  on  the  carpet,  as  you  went  into  the  box  of  the 
theatre.  I  delivered  over  the  preliminary  examinations  I  had  made  to  the  War 
Department,  and  that  ended  my  connection  with  the  matter. 

Q.  "What  did  you  find  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  staple  on  the  door 
that  held  the  door  lock  1 

A.  The  staple  of  the  lock  to  the  door  went  into  a  hasp  with  screws  at  each 
end.  The  screw  at  one  end  had  been  loosened  in  such  a  way  that  if  you  shut 
tlie  door  and  locked  it — I  tried  the  experiment  once  or  twice — you  could  push 
it  open ;  you  could  take  one  of  your  fingei'S  and  push  the  door  open  although 
locked.  One  of  the  screws,  the  upper  one,  I  think,  had  been  screwed  out  in 
such  a  way  that  the  door  would  open  without  any  resistance,  and  without  creat- 
ing any  disturbance,  if  locked. 

Q.  You  tried  the  experiment  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Would  any  person,  when  the  door  was  thus  locked,  have  noticed  that  such 
was  the  condition  ot  it,  unless  his  attention  was  drawn  to  it  ? 

A.  O,  no ;  you  saw  nothing  of  that  on  the  outside,  and  you  would  not  see  it 
on  the  inside  without  a  careful  inspection.  It  was  just  a  little  loosened,  to  that 
extent  that  the  door  could  open  when  gently  pressed  against. 

Q.  Then  the  shavings  from  the  wall  and  from  the  hole  cut  out  of  the  door 
were  all  on  the  carpet  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  could  see  inside  that  box  without  a  light, 
whether  you  did  not  have  to  take  a  light  1 

A.  We  had  a  light,  but  you  could  possibly  see  without  it.  I  requested  a 
light  to  be  obtained  in  order  to  examine  as  carefully  as  I  could. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  you  got  in  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  recollect  how  I  got  in.  I  do  not  know  how  you  could  get  into 
the  box,  except  by  going  through  the  body  of  the  theatre  and  into  the  little  hall, 
for  there  is  a  kind  of  hall,  according  to  my  recollection,  five  or  ten  feet  in  length, 
into  which  the  door  shuts  at  an  angle  and  opens  back.  It  is  a  dark  passage 
and  is  not  lighted  anywhere  except  from  the  body  of  the  theatre  or  from  the 
box  itself. 

Q.  You  were  there  in  broad  daylight  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  windows  were  thrown  open  so  as  to  let  in  a 
light  from  the  outside  when  you  were  there  1 

A.  I  recollect  very  well  that  although  I  think  you  could  see  pretty  well,  you 
could  not  see  as  well  as  I  wanted  to  with  the  light  through  the  passage. 

Walter  H.  Coleman,  residence  Washington  city,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  is  your  business  1 

A.  I  am  at  the  head  of  a  division  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea- 
sury, one  of  the  financial  divisions. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  been  there  1 
A.  Since  1864. 

Q.  Do  you  know  George  W.  Cushing  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  used  to  be  a  room-mate  of  mine. 
Q.  Were  you  with  him  anywhere  on  the  day  of  the  assassination  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT.  521 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  day  of  the  assassination,  after  dinner,  we  walked  up  Penn- 
sylvania avenne. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Booth  before  that  time? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Huw  well  by  sight  did  you  know  him  1 

A.  As  well  as  I  know  any  one  by  sight. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  that  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  where  you  saw  him,  what  he  was  doing,  and  what  you 
saw  ? 

A.  We  were  on  Pennsylvania  avenue  between  Tenth  and  Eleventh  streets, 
going  towards  Willards'.  We  looked  around  and  at  first  we  noticed  a  very  nice 
little  horse,  and  a  person  was  standing  a  few  feet  from  him  in  the  gutter.  Wo 
stopped  first  to  look  at  the  horse ;  then  we  noticed  the  rider,  and  I  said  to  Mr. 
Cushiug  "  Ihere  is  Booth,  is  he  not  1"  I  looked  then  again  and  saw  that  it  was. 
We  remarked  the  pallor  of  his  countenance. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  need  not  state  any  conversation  that  passed  between  you 
and  Mr.  Gushing. 

There  was  a  little  conversation.  He  was  sitting  on  his  horse  with  his  face 
towards  us,  and  was  leaning  over  talking  very  earnestly  with  a  man  who  stood 
on  the  curbstone.  This  was  about  6  o'clock  in  the  evening.  I  recollect  taking 
out  my  watch  to  look  at  it. 

Q.   What  was  the  style  of  his  conversation,  as  to  earnestness  or  otherwise  ? 

A.  He  was  bendiug  very  low.  He  was  sitting  with  their  two  heads  very 
nearly  together.     He  appeared  to  be  talking  very  earnestly. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  in  the  expression  of  his  face  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  his  face  was  very  pale — as  pale  as  if  he  had  got  up  from  a  sick 
bed. 

Q.  Were  any  remarks  made  upon  that  subject  at  that  time  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.) 

Q.  You  need  not  state  what  the  remarks  were.  Simply  state  whether  the  fact 
excited  conversation  an  the  subject. 

A.  His  paleness  was  such  as  led  us  to  remark  upon  it. 

Q.  Describe  the  man  he  was  talking  with  ? 

A.  He  was  a  man  of  ordinary  size. 

Q.  Young  or  old  1 

A.  He  appeared  to  be  a  young  man. 

Q.  How  dressed  1 

A.  He  was  dressed  in  a  suit  of  gray  clothes,  with  a  low-crowned  hat — a  black 
felt  lint — on. 

Q.   Have  you  ever  seen  that  man  since,  before  to-day,  that  you  know  of? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  anybody  to-day  that  bears  any  resemblance  to  him  ? 

A.  1  would  like  the  prisoner  to  stand  up  and  turn  side  wise. 

(Prisoner  stood  up  and  turned  round.) 

He  certainly  looks  like  that  man. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Has  your  attention  ever  been  drawn  to  the  prisoner  before  this  morning  ? 
A.   In  what  way? 

[Mr.  Bradley.  In  any  way.] 
A.   1  knew  that  he  was  on  trial. 
Q.   I  mean  as  to  personal  observations  ? 
A.   No,  sir  ;  not  that  I  know  of. 
Q.  You  think  he  is  about  medium  height  ? 

A.  1  think  as  I  saw  the  man  stand  on  the  sidewalk,  he  looks  about  the  height 
34 


522  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

of  that  man  (pointiDg  to  the  prisoner.)     You  will  recollect  the  sidewalk  or  curb- 
stone Avliere  he  was  standing  was  a  little  depressed. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ] 

A.  We  were  on  the  crosswalk  which  crosses  the  avenue  at  Eleventh   street. 

Q.  Could  you  form  some  idea  whether  this  man  was  above  medium  height 
■when  you  saw  the  man  on  horseback  leaning  overto  talk  to  him. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  think  he  was  about  medium  height  ? 

A.   I  think,  so. 

Q.  You  think  the  prisoner  is  about  medium  height  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  think  so.     I  think  he  is  about  the  height  of  the  man  I  saw, 

Q.  And  that  is  about  medium  height  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  what  I  understand. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Booth  and  the  person  he  was  conversing  with  say  anything? 

A.  xso,  sir  ;   1  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  pass  them  1 

A  Yes,  sir;  they  were  standing  still,  heading  towards  Willards'.  We  passed 
them  on  the  way  to  Willards'  and  stopped  and  looked  back. 

Q.  How  near  the  corner  ? 

A.  It  was  about  opposite  the  rubber  store  of  Allen,  Clapp  &  Co.,  who  used 
to  be  there,  between  Tenth  and  Eleventh  streets. 

Q.  It  was  not  exactly  on  the  avenue,  then,  but  on  the  street  that  turns  up 
from  the  avenue.     Blanchard  &  Mohun's  store  is  on  the  corner  is  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  think  D  street  passes  down  by  McGuire's  store.  Then  there  is 
a  little  triangular  space  between  D  street  and  the  avenue  proper.  This  was  at 
about  the  poiut  of  the  wedge  where  they  were  standing. 

Q.  And  you  were  on  the  crossing  leading  across  D  street  ? 

A    Ygs  sir. 

Q.  And  they  were  on  the  sidewalk  which  would  bring  you  forty  or  fifty  feet 

of  them  ? 

A.   Oh,  no,  sir;   I  think  it  would  not  be  as  far  as  that. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  any  remark  made  by  them  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  saw  the  prisoner  since  then  until  to-day  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  AVhen  you  came  into  court  to-day  did  you  recognize  him  ? 

A.  I  had  some  doubts  and  have  still.  I  would  not  like  to  swear  positively 
"  that  he  is  the  man.     Still  I  have  a  strong  impression  that  he  was. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  a  gentleman  here  which  was  ihe  prisoner,  when  you  came 
into  court,  in  our  hearing  1 

A.  1  do  not  know  whether  you  could  hear.  I  certainly  did  ask.  I  did  not 
know  in  what  part  of  the  room  the  prisoner  was, 

Q.   Did  not  you  ask  to  have  the  prisoner  pointed  out  to  you? 

A.  Certainly,  I  did.  I  did  not  know  in  what  [m-i  of  the  room  the  prisoner 
was  sitting.  1  might  ask  the  same  question  about  you,  not  knowing  in  what 
part  of  the  room  }ou  were  sitting,  although  I  kunw  you. 

Q.  After  looking  at  the  prisoner  carefully,  when  you  were  here,  did  not  you 
say  in  our  hearing  that  you  could  not  recognize  him  ? 

A.  I   did  not  say  that  loud  enough   lor   you  to  bear.     I  said  I    had  doubts 

about  it. 

Q.  And  you  say  you  still  have  doubts  ? 

A.  1  would  not  like  to  swear  positively  that  he  is  the  man ;  but  after  looking 
a  second  time  and  seeing  him  stand  up,  I  think  he  looks  very  much  like  the 
man. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  523 

George  "W.  Cushivg,  jr.,  residence  Washington,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  ^Ir.  PlERREPo.XT  : 

Q.  Where  are  you  employed  ? 

A.  At  the  Treasury  Department. 

Q.  In  what  department  of  the  Treasury  ? 

A.  Second  Auditor's  oliice. 

Q.  How  many  years  have  you  been  there  ? 

A.  Since  1861. 

Q.  On  the  day  of  the  assassination  of  the  President,  state  where  you  were  in 
company  ,  if  so)  with  Mr.  Coleman. 

A.  After  dinner  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  we  took  a  walk  up  the  avenue, 
about  6  o'clock.  When  we  were  passing  about  Tenth  or  Eievfiilh  street,  Mr. 
Coleman  turned  round  and  began  noticing  a  horse.  I  turned  round.  He  says 
to  me,  "That  is  Booth,  aint  it?  "  Said  I.  "Yes."  We  stood  and  looked  at 
the  horse  a  moment  and  wtnit  on. 

Q.  AVhat  was  Booth  doing  i 

A.  The  horse  was  standing  still.  Booth  was  on  horseback,  and  he  was 
leaning  over  the  horse's  neck  talking  very  earnestly  to  a  man.  He  appeared  to 
be  talking  very  earnestly,  indeed. 

Q.  What  was  the  look  of  his  face? 

A.  He  looked  as  if  he  had  been  sick. 

Q.  Did  his  looks  excite  remark  ? 

A.  Not  from  me.  1  think  .Mr.  Coleman  noticed  that  he  had  been  sick,  ot 
something  of  that  sort. 

Q.  Did  it  excite  remark  by  some  of  yon? 

A.  1  believe  we  both  noticed  that  he  was  sick.  Mr.  Coleman  made  some 
remark  to  me  about  it. 

(Prisoner  stood  up  and  turned  round,  at  the  request  of  counsel.) 

Q    Does  he  (the  prisoner)  look  like  the  man  yon  saw  talking  with  Booth? 

A.  The  man  I  saw  talking  with  Booth  was  a  young  man.  I  do  not  know 
that  he  resembles  the  prisoner  very  much.  My  attention  was  directed  to  Booth 
at  the  time. 

Q.  You  state  that  your  attention  was  directed  particnlarly  to  Booth  ? 

A.  In  an.-iwer  to  Mr.  Coleman's  inquiry  whether  that  was  Booths  I  looked  at 
Booth,  stood  a  moment  and  went  on  with  my  walk. 

(4.  You  did  not  give  much  attention  to  the  man  he  was  talking  with? 

A.  No,  sir ;  none  at  all. 

Mrs.  Makv  Bra.xsox,  residence  Baltimore,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  ^Ir.  PlERREPONT: 

Q    In  1865,  where  did  you  live? 

A.  1  lived  at  No   16  Eutaw  street,  Baltimore. 

Q.  Did  you  see,  while  tlie  trials  of  the  conspirators  were  going  on  in  Wash- 
ington a  man  called  Lewis  Payne  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  in  January,  1865,  and  for  som.e  time  after  that,  this 
same  man  Payne  boarded  at  your  house? 

A.  He  boarded  at  my  house  in  Jatuuiry. 

Q.  How  long  did  he  continue  after  January? 

A.  He  staid  with  me  about  six  weeks. 

Q.  Did  you  know  wheie  he  went  then? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  visit  him  while  he  Avas  tliPre  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  no  one  called  on  him  while  he  was-there  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Ue  lived  there  quietly,  did  he  1 


524  TRIAL    01'    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Yes  ;  I  kept  a  boarding-house,  and  gentlemen  were  passing  backwards 
and  forwards  in  the  house. 

George  S  Koontz,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  the  Assistant  Distrjct  Attorney  : 

Q.  You  are  the  general  agent  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  railroad,  and  have 
been  for  several  years  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been  in  the  service  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  railroad, 
in  this  city,  since  April,  1862. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  ? 

A.  As  general  agent  of  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  at  what  time  the  passenger  trains  for  Baltimore  left 
Washington  the  morning  after  the  assassination. 

A.  Several  of  them  left  on  time,  1  believe. 

Q.  Give  the  hours,  if  you  please  1 

A.  The  first  train  left  at  6.15  in  the  morning,  the  next  at  7.30  ;  the  third  at 
8.30,  I  think.  I  do  not  remember  if  either  of  the  trains  was  started  after  that 
iu  the  morning. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  whether  they  went  through  to  Baltimore  or  not,  and  what  time 
they  went  through. 

A.  They  were  detained  on  the  road,  at  the  Relay  House,  by  order  of  General 
Tyler,  who  was  iu  command  of  that  post  at  that  time. 

Q.  For  how  long  ? 

A.  The  early  trains  were  detained  several  hours.  I  do  not  know  the  precise 
number  of  hours. 

Q.  State  whether  they  had  any  guard  on  the  cars  when  they  left  here, 
whether  any  detectives  were  on  board,  and  what  precautions  were  used,  and 
what  instructions  you  received  from  the  military. 

A.  I  was  aroused  very  early  that  morning  by  an  officer  of  General  Augur's 
staff,  who  directed  me,  by  command  of  General  Augur,  not  to  start  any  train 
from  Washington  until  further  orders.  I  went  back  with  him  to  the  depot,  and 
gave  directions  that  no  trains  should  leave.  When  the  hour  arrived  for  the  6.15 
train  to  start,  they  concluded  it  might  go.  It  was  thoroughly  searched  by  officers 
of  General  Augur's  staff  and  by  men  who  claimed  to  be  detectives,  and  guards 
were  placrd  on  each  platform  of  each  car. 

Q.  State  whether  with  each  of  these  morning  trains  any  connection  was  made 
at  Baltimore  with  trains  going  north. 

A.  They  did  not  make  regular  connections. 

Q.  At  what  time  is  the  6.15  train  due  in  Baltimore? 

A.  At  8  o'clock. 

Q.  Have  you  official  information  as  to  what  time  it  actually  arrived  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  hour  of  its  arrival  iu  Baltimore.  I  have  the  record 
at  my  office.     It  was  several  hours  after  time. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  or  not  the  first  three  trains  which  were  delayed  at 
the  Relay  House  went  together  on  to  Baltimore  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  they  went  together  to  Baltimore.  They  arrived  shortly 
after  each  otlier. 

Q  Did  you  yourself  accompany  and  assist  in  the  search  of  the  train  before  it 
staitcd  from  Washington  ? 

A.  I  did. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  the  train  which  left  Washington  that  morning  did  not 
connect  with  the  first  train  from  Baltimore ;  it  did  not  reach  there  on  time,  and 
could  not  have  connected  if  that  train  left  on  time  ? 

A.  !No,  sir. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  525 

By  Mr.  Bradlky  : 

Q.  State  whether  any  of  your  own  family  were  not  detained  that  morning, 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  my  chiklren  were  in  Frederick.  They  came  from  Frederick, 
having  been  sent  for.  1  telegraphed  for  my  sister  to  bring  them  home.  They 
were  stopped  at  the  Relay  House  by  direction  of  General  Tyk-r.  There  was  a 
train  to  be  started  from  the  Relay  House  with  soldiers,  and  I  telegraphed  to 
General  Tj'ler  requesting  him  to  allow  my  children  to  come,  as  they  were  sick. 
He  knew  me  very  well  and  I  thought  he  would  grant  tne  that  favor;  but  he 
declined  to  do  so.     He  said  his  orders  were  positive,  and  he  had  to  obey  them. 

Q.  AVhat  time  did  they  reach  here  ? 

A.  My  children  reached  here  i»  the  course  of  the  afternoon. 

Q.  What  time  were  they  due  ? 

A.  They  were  due  at  10  20  or  11.30,  in  the  forenoon.  I  do  not  recollect  with 
w^hich  of  these  trains  the  Frederick  train  connected  at  the  Relay  House. 

Bv  Mr.  PiERREPONT  : 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  month — what  day  of  the  month — was  it  that  your 
children  reached  here  1 

A.  The  morning  of  the  assassination — the  morning  I  was  called  on  by  this 
officer. 

Q.  That  was  the  loth  of  April  ? 

A.  The  15th,  sir. 

Q.  These  circumstances  you  have  mentioned  make  it  perfectly  certain  that 
the  train  that  left  here  did  not  reach  Baltimore  in  time  to  connect  with  the  train 
for  the  north  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  unless  the  connecting  trains  were  held  over  for  the  arrival  of  our 
trains  to  Baltimore. 

Thomas  Lincoln  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  are  a  son  of  the  late  President  Lincoln  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  with  your  father  down  at  City  Point  in  March,  1865  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you — in  a  house  or  on  a  steamboat  1 
A.  On  a  steamboat. 

Q.  Were  you  with  him  during  the  time  he  was  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anybody  coming  to  the  steamer  and  asking  to  speak  to 
him. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  the  man  say  ? 

A.  He  said  he  would  like  to  see  the  President. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.     Objection  overruled.) 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  where  hi'  cauie  from  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  he  said  from  Springfield. 

Q.  What  further  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  he  would  like  to  see  the  President  on  particular  business. 

Q.  State  the  mode  of  his  saying  it :  whether  be  urged  it. 

A.  Yes,  sir;   he  wanted  to  see  him  "  real  bad." 

Q.  State  whether  he  tried  more  than  once  to  pass  in  where  he  was. 

A.  He  tried  twice,  I  believe. 

Q.  State  whether  they  would  allow  him  to  see  the  President. 

A    They  would  not. 

Q.  Do  you  see  the  man  here  who  tried  to  see  the  President  ? 

(Prisoner  made  to  stand  up.) 


526  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  He  looked  very  much  like  him. 
Q.  Like  the  prisoner. 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  to  be  noted  to  the  ruling  of  the  court  ad- 
mitting the  testimony  of  this  witness. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

Friday,  July  5,  1S67. 

On  reasseiribling  after  the  recess,  the  district  attorney  said  : 

I  desire  to  state  to  your  honor  that  there  are  only  two  additional  items 
of  testimony  that  we  propose  to  offer  to  the  jury — one  in  reference  to 
the  state  of  the  moon  on  the  night  of  the  assassination,  and  the  other  a  cipher 
letter,  the  translation  of  which  is  published  in  Pitman's  report  of  the  trial  be- 
fore the  military  commission,  page  42.  Probably  Mr.  Bradley  will  admit  it  as  it 
is  there  reported  ;  if  he  does  we  will  close  the  case ;  if  not,  we  will  have  to 
ask  the  court  to  indulg'e  us  until  Mr.  Duell,  by  whom  we  propose  to  prove  it, 
comes  in.  li  the  gentlemen  think  it  is  not  evidence  they  can  make  that  point 
before  the  court  now  in  the  absence  of  the  witness  just  as  well  if  he  were  here. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  do  not  feel  ourselves  authorized  to  admit  anything  with 
regard  to  such  a  transaction. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  want  to  see  Mr.  Duell. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  want  to  have  him  here  in  order  that  we  may  talk  to  him. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  believe  it  is  agreed  that  the  almanac  may  be 
handed  in  at  any  time  before  the  defence  offer  their  proof  to  show  when  the 
moon  rose  on  the  night  in  question,  and  what  was  its  condition  as  to  its  being 
full  or  not. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  think  the  only  satisfactory  exposition  of  that  matter  would 
be  the  presence  of  a  scientific  man  here,  who  arranges  these  matters  for  the 
government. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Mr.  William  Q.  Force,  from  the  Smithsonian, might  be  sum- 
moned. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Or  Professor  Henry,  of  that  Institution,  who  could  not  only 
furnish  reliable  information  regarding  the  condition  of  the  moon  at  that  time, 
but  also  as  regards  the  state  of  the  weather. 

Mr.  PiERREPo.XT.  I  suppose  any  almanac  published  in  1805  is  a  proper 
thing  to  be  put  in  evidence,  provided  we  are  able  to  agree  upnn  some  particular 
one.  I  understand  it  to  be  a  principle  of  the  common  law  that  we  may  read 
any  history  or  almanac,  because  the  court  will  take  judicial  notice  of  the  move- 
ments of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  are  recorded  by 
any  person  who  thinks  proper  to  write  on  the  subject. 

The  Court.  1  will  read  here,  for  the  benefit  of  whom  it  may  concern,  part  of 
the  5th  section,  chapter  II,  1st  volume  of  Greeuleaf  on  evidence. 

Speakii7g  of  matters  which  are  recognized  in  courts  of  common  law  jurisdiction 
among  all  civilized  nations,  it  is  said:  "Neither  is  it  necessary  to  prove  things 
which  must  have  happened  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  nor  to 
prove  the  course  then  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  nor  the  ordinary  public  fasts  and 
festivals,  nor  the  coincidence  of  days  of  the  week   with  the  day  of  the  month." 

I  presume  that  the  movement  of  the  moon  is  the  movement  of  a  heavenly 
body.     That  is  all  I  know  about  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  now  pmpose  to  read  from  this  almanac  the  time  of  the 
rising  of  the  moon,  and  the  time  when  it  was  at  its  full  on  the  night  of  the  14th 
of  April,  1865. 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  the  reading.  Objection  overruled.  Exception  re- 
served. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SUERATT.  527 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  understood  your  honor  to  decide  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  prove  it. 

The  Court.  It  is  not. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then  it  is  not  necessary  to  read  it  now. 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT.  I  want  to  read  it  to  the  jury,  in  order  that  they  raay  appre- 
ciate the  evidence  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  court  says  it  not  necessary  to  prove  it. 

The  Court.  It  woukl  be  better  for  you  to  refer  to  it  in  your  argument. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  the  way  I  understand  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPo.XT.  I  supposed  I  would  also  have  aright  to  read  it  to  the  jury 
before  I  came  to  the  arjrument. 

The  Court.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Pierrepoat.  Your  honor,  then,  will  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  moon 
on  the  tiight  of  the  14th  of  April,  1S65,  rose  in  Washington  at  9.59,  and  was 
then  within  two  d&ys  of  its  full. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  would  ask  your  honor  whether  that  is  in  evidence  to  the 
jury  or  not. 

The  Court.  I  do  not  admit  that  book,  but  I  will  state  that  the  court  does  not 
intend  that  this  jury  shall  go  from  this  box  without  knowing  at  what  hour  the 
moon  rose. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  smply  want  to  understand  where  we  are  now. 

The  Court.  That  book  I  do  not  admit  in  evidence,  for  I  do  not  know  that 
it  is  an  almanac. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Nor  do  I  understand  your  honor  to  say  that  it  is  competent 
for  the  gentleman  to  slate  now  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  evidence  to  the  jury  that 
the  moon  rose  at  such  i  time. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  understand  your  honor,  then,  to  rule  that  there  is  no  evidence 
offered  on  that  subject.  That  what  has  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  is  not 
evidence,  and  therefore,  if  counsel  comment  upon  it,  they  do  not  do  so  as  evidence, 
but  as  a  matter  of  whic'i  notice  may  be  taken. 

Mr.  PiERREPo.N'T.  We  will  get  the  moon  up  somehow  before  the  jury. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  sir;  and  we  will  get  it  down. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiVT.  I  now  propose  to  call  a  witness  with  regard  to  this  cipher 
letter. 

Frederick  H.  Hall,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepo\t  : 

Q.  Where  were  you  employed  during  the  war,  or  towards  the  latter  part  of 
it? 

A.  In  the  war  office  under  either  Mr.  Stanton  or  Mr.  Dana,  assistant  Secretary 
of  War 

Q.  Have  you  had  experience  in  deciphering  ciphers  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Will  yon  be  kind  enough  to  look  at  the  cipher  letter  before  you,  and  then 
state  wh'jther  you  are  able  to  decipher  it,  to  state  what  the  contents  of  the  letter 
are,  in  P^nglisa  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  object. 

The  Court.  The  witness  can  go  on  and  state  wliat  his  translation  of  the  letter 
is,  but  the  letter  will  not  be  allowed  to  be  put  in  evidence  before  the  jury  until 
it  is  connected  with  the  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

Mr.  Perrepo.xt.  We  propose  to  show  by  the  man  who  f)und  this  letter  that 
it  was  found  in  North  Carolina.  It  shows  on  its  face  that  it  is  in  cipher.  We 
want  to  •ihow  by  the  testimony  of  experts  that  this  cipher  is  in  the  handwriting 
of  one  of  these  conspirator.-.  These  six  conspirators  form  a  corporate  body,  and 
their  twelve  hands,  and  their  six  heads,  act  together,  and  you  cannot  separate 
them. 


528  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT 

Mr.  Bradley.  If  the  gentleman  will  say  that  he  intends  to  prove  this  paper 
to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  any  one  of  the  conspirators,  I  withdraw  all  objection. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  Dot  Say  of  the  prisoner,  but  of  one  of  the  six  con- 
spirators, 

Mr.  Bradley.  Precisely.     With  that  assurance  I  withdraw  the  objection. 

Examination  resumed  by  Mr.  Pierrepo.\t. 

Q.  Are  you  able  to  decipher  the  letter  that  has  been  handed  you  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  Have  you  translated  it  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Will  you  read  the  translation  ? 

Witness  then  read  as  follows  : 

"  Washlxgton,  Ap'-il  the  15,  1865. 

"  Dear  Johx  :  I  am  happy  to  inform  you  that  Pet  has  done  his  work  well- 
He  is  safe  and  Old  Abe  is  in  hell.  Now,  sir,  all  eyes  are  on  you.  You  must 
bring  Sherman.  Grant  is  in  the  hands  of  Gray  ere  this.  Ked  Shoes  showed  a 
lack  of  nerve  in  Seward's  case.  But  he  fell  back  in  good  order.  Johnson  must 
come.  Old  Crook  has  him  in  charge.  Mind  well  that  brother's  oath  and  you 
will  have  no  difficulty.  All  well.  Be  safe  and  enjoy  th^  fruits  of  our  labor. 
We  had  a  large  meeting  last  night.  All  were  bent  on  carrying  out  the  program 
to  the  letter.  The  rails  are  laid  our  safe  exit.  Old,  always  behind,  lost  the  pass  at 
City  Point.  Noav  I  say  again  the  lives  of  our  brave  officers  and  the  life  of  the  South 
depends  upon  the  carrying  this  program  into  effect.  No.  two  will  give  you  this. 
Its  ordered.  No  more  letters  shall  be  sent  by  mail ;  when  you  write  sign  no 
real  name,  and  send  by  some  of  our  friends  who  are  coning  home.  We  want 
you  to  write  us  how  the  news  was  received  there.  We  receive  great  encourage- 
ment from  all  quarters.  I  hope  there  will  be  no  getting  weak  in  the  knees.  I 
was  in  Baltimore  yesterday.  Pet  had  not  got  there  yet.  Your  folks  are  well 
and  have  heard  from  you.     Don't  lose  vour  nerve. 

"  O'B.  NO.  FIVE. 

Q.  What  is  the  date  of  that  letter  % 

A.  There  is  no  terminal  date.  Only,  "  Washington,  ipril  15, 1 865."  There 
is  no  punctuation  to  this,  except  in  one  or  two  cases.     The  sense  supplies  that. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Bradley. 

Q.  There  are  no  ciphers  for  four  letters  in  there,  I  see,  "Q,"  "  Y,"  "  X,"  "Z." 

A.  No,  sir. 
■-    Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  cipher  letter  before  to-day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  April,  1865. 

Q.  Did  you  then  make  a  translation  of  it  ? 

A.  I  read  it. 

Q.  Did  you  make  a  translation  of  it  % 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  translate  it  % 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Duell  made  the  translation  which  was  read  at  ihe  conspiracy 
trials. 

Q.  Did  you  dictate  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir.  The  letter  was  shown  to  me  by  Major  Burnett,  who  was  one  of 
the  judge  advocates,  and  I  read  it,  but  simply  for  my  own  instruction. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Duell  show  you  his  translation  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  show  it  to  you  ? 

A.  Nobody. 

Q.  You  never  saw  the  translation  ] 

A.  Oh,  yes,  sir.     I  have  seen  it  in  the  printed  book. 

Q.  Have  you  read  it  to-day  ?  i 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  529 

A.  Will  you  please  arrange  the  alphabet  of  this  cipher  letter  on  this  slip  of 
paper  ? 
A.  I  will. 
Witness  did  so  as  follows  : 

A  1  J  :  S  s 

Bb  K  ;  •  Tt 

C  8  L  7  U5 

D  +  U  ....  V 

E  2  N  . . .  W  CO 

F    :  04  X 

G  9  P  T  Y  5 

H  :.  Q  Z 

I  I  11 .  r 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  (Saturday)  morning,  at  10 
o'clock. 

Saturday,  July  6,  1867. 

The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

The  DisiTRiCT  Attorn KY  stated  that  he  had  used  every  exertion  to  procure 
the  attendance  of  Mr.  Duell  as  a  witness,  but  that  for  some  renson  he  was  not  in 
Court.  He  proposed  therefore  now  to  close  the  case  on  the  part  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, reserving  the  right,  with  the  consent  of  counsel  for  the  defence,  to  examine 
this  witness  upon  a  single  point,  if  he  should  subsequently  appear. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  did  not  assent  to  that  proposition. 

Mr.  PiKRRKPO.XT  remarked  that  it  was  a  matter  within  the  discretion  of  the 
court. 

The  CoL'RT  said  the  regular  order  in  presenting  the  case  was  for  the  prosecu- 
tion to  present  their  side  and  conclude,  and  then  for  the  other  side  to  present 
theirs. 

The  District  Attorney  said  the  chief  justice  of  this  court  in  certain  cases 
had  allowed  persons  to  be  called  as  wit;nesses  for  the  prosecution  after  the  other 
side  had  commenced  its  case.  He  believed  it  would  be  the  exercise  of  a  proper 
discretion  on  the  part  of  the  court  to  allow  the  same  thing  to  be  done  in  reference 
to  this  witness.  He  would  not,  however,  make  the  application  now,  but  reserving 
the  right  to  make  it  hereafter  if  it  should  become  necessary,  he  now  closed  the 
case  on  the  part  of  the  government. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  the  witness  Susan  Ann  Jackson  to  be  recalled  for  fur- 
ther cross-examination.  He  understood  the  district  attorney  distinctly  to  assent 
to  the  recall  for  further  cross-examination  of  any  witnesses  who  might  be  in  the 
city,  and  the  notes  of  the  reporter,  who  was  an  officer  of  the  court,  would  bear 
him  out  in  that  statement.  The  agreement,  however,  was  S])ecifically  made  as 
to  Susan  Ann  Jackson,  John  Lee,  and  Khoads,  as  to  whom  there  was  no  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  and  who  they  now  desired  to  have  recalled  for  further  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  the  discussion  arose  on  the  case  of  Lee,  and  that  there 
was  no  such  agreement  as  to  him. 

At  the  request  of  ^Iv.  Aferriek  the  reporter  of  the  court  read  his  short-hand 
notes  of  tlie  discussion  on  the  motion  of  the  defence  to  recall  certain  witnesses 
on  the  morning  of  June  20th,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  district  attor- 
ney on  that  occasion  assented  to  the  recall  for  further  cross-examination  of  any 
witnesses  in  attendance,  and  remarked  that  the  agreement,  as  the  report  showed, 
was  general  as  to  witnesses  being  in  the  city  or  in  attendance  upon  court,  and 
that  the  case  of  Susan  Ann  Jackson  was  a  special  application  of  the  general 
consent  given. 


530  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

The  Court  said  that  the  oflfer  so  made  by  the  district  attorney  was  not  ac- 
cepted by  the  defence  at  the  time. 

Mr.  Merrick  replied  that  the  defence  did  not  refuse  to  accept  the  general 
consent. 

Mr.  PfERREPONT  denied  that  any  general  consent  was  given,  or  that  any 
consent  at  all  was  given,  except  in  the  case  of  Susan  Ann  Jackson,  and  as 
the  district  attorney  subsequently  informed  him,  in  the  case  of  llhoads.  These 
witnesses  would  be  recalled  whenever  the  defence  required.  He  stated  to 
counsel,  however,  that  whenever  these  witnesses  were  recalled  he  should  further 
examine  them  in  chief. 

Mr.  Bradley  moved  to  strike  out  the  testimony  relating  to  Jacob  Thompson. 
It  would  be  recollected  that  the  evidence  was  admitted  only  upon  the  condition 
that  Jacob  Thompson  should  be  connected  by  aliunde  proof  with  this  case. 
The  prosecution  had  closed  its  testimony  without  making  any  such  connection, 
and  he  therefore  moved  to  strike  out  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  what  he  had  stated  he  could  prove  in  relation  to  Thomp- 
son v/as  in  connection  with  tlie  disbursement  of  money,  and  for  that  purpose  he 
desired  to  show  who  Jacob  Thompson  was.  He  had  proved  that  the  prisoner 
took  $100,000  of  this  money  from  Richmond,  and  had  therefore  made  the  con- 
nection which  he  had  promised. 

Mr.  Bradley  insisted  that  no  such  frhna  facie  case  as  the  rule  required,  con- 
necting this  party  with  the  conspiracy,  had  been  made. 

The  Court  ruled  that  the  question  should  be  held  in  reserve  until  the  testi- 
mony had  been  presented  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  then  he  understood  the  testimony  on  this  point  to  be  re- 
ceived subject  to  their  exoeptiou.  He  wished  also  to  call  attention  to  the  state- 
ments of  the  witness  McMillan,  purporting  to  give  certain  revelations  made  to 
him  by  the  prisoner  about  the  killing  of  Union  soldiers,  the  shooting  of  people 
while  crossing  the  Potomac  river,  and  the  killing  of  the  telegraph  operator.  He 
understood  this  testimony  was  to  be  ruled  out  unless  connected  by  proof  aliunde 
with  the  alleged  conspiracy. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  if  he  did  not  show  it  was  connected  with  this  case  he 
did  not  desire  the  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  understood  the  court  to  make  the  same  ruling  in  rela- 
tion to  this  evidence  as  in  that  in  reference  to  Jacob  Thompson. 

The  Court  assented. 

Mr.  Bradley  then  called  attention  to  the  North  Carolina  cipher  letter,  and 
s'aid  he  understood  it  to  be  conceded  that  was  not  in  the  case. 

Mr.  Fierrepont  said  it  was  so  conceded  unless  further  evidence  was  intro- 
duced in  reference  to  it  by  the  witness,  to  whom  reference  had  been  made. 

The  Court  said  he  understood  the  prosecution  had  closed  their  case  with  the 
understanding  that  it  was  without  prejudice  to  their  application  to  introduce  an- 
other witness,  if  they  could  convince  the  court  of  the  propriety  of  admitting 
such  evidence  after  the  defence  had  commenced  its  case.  As  regards  the  other 
evidence  referred  to,  the  question  of  what  should  be  stricken  out  would  be  held 
for  future  consideration. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  to  the  above  ruling  to  be  noted. 

Mr.  ]\Ierri<  k  asked  at  what  time  in  the  progress  of  the  case  the  question 
of  striking  out  the  testimony  would  be  determined'? 

The  Court  replied — any  time  before  the  jury  get  possession  of  the  case. 

Mr.  Joseph  H.  Bradley,  jr.,  then  opened  the  case  for  the  defence  as  follows  : 

May  it  please  your  honor,  and  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we  have  at  last  arrived 
at  that  stage  of  this  case  when  an  opportunity  is  afforded  the  prisoner  for  say- 
ing something  by  way  of  defence,  not  only  of  his  own  character,  his  own  repu- 
tation, his  life,  and  his  honor,  but  also,  as  it  shall  rise  incidentally  in  the  discus- 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  63  L 

sion  of  this  evidence  before  you,  something  in  the  way  of  viudicatiug  the  pure 
fame  of  his  departed  mother. 

i'erhaps  no  case  has  ever  arisen  in  the  annals  of  any  country,  presenting  more 
extraordinary  features  than  the  one  which  you  have  under  coa.sideration.  Per- 
haps no  jury  was  ever  called  on  to  discharge  a  higher,  a  more  difficult,  a  more 
sacred  duty  than  is  yours.  Surely, gentlemen,  our  confidence  in  you  is  not  mis- 
placed in  believing  you  will  do  justice,  and  entire  justice,  irrespective  of  rank, 
position,  station,  or  of  the  parties  interested  in  the  issues  of  this  case — 
and  1  may  be  permitted  here  to  congratulate  you  that  you  are  acceptable,  not 
only  to  the  defence,  but  you  also  have  the  indorsement  of  the  learned  gen- 
tlemen who  ri-present  the  government.  You  will  recollect  that  iu  the  early 
stage  of  this  case  it  took  us  one  week  to  get  a  jury.  We  were  willing  to  take 
any  twelve  honest  men  iu  this  District ;  to  lay  our  case  before  them  a.ul  trust 
it  in  their  hands — to  take  any  twenty-six  men,  drawn  in  the  ordinary  way,  and 
allow  the  gentlemen  for  the  prosecution  to  strike  off  their  number,  we  strike 
off  ours,  and  empanel  those  who  remained  as  the  jury  belorewhom  we  might 
present  our  case.  All  these  propositions,  however,  failed.  The  k-arned  gentle- 
men on  the  other  side  resisted  every  application  of  this  sort,  except  one,  which 
failed  through  no  fault  on  our  part.  They  would  accept  no  proposition  as  a 
compromise,  and  they  succeeded  in  satisfying  the  mind  of  his  honor  that  it  was 
his  duty  to  reject  the  jury  then  summoned — men  as  honest  as  yourselves — on  the 
ground  that  they  were  not  summoned  according  to  law,  and  we  are  therefore 
under  the  necessity  of  calling  upon  you  to  render  your  aid  and  wisdom  iu  this 
matter. 

1  see  before  me  represented  not  only  the  commonwealth  itself,  but  men  who 
represent  the  social  interests  of  this  District — its  material  wealth,  its  intelligence, 
and  its  honesty — men  who  in  this  case  have  a  double  duty  to  perforin,  not  only 
to  stand  between  the  innocent  and  the  accuser,  but  also  to  vindicate  the  repu- 
tation of  this  District,  whose  loyalty  has  been  so  much  defamed.  You  are 
also  a  jury  who  cannot  be  reproached  with  having  a  taint  of  religious  or 
other  bias  in  this  matter — for  you  represent  opposite  opinions  upon  the  political 
questions  of  the  day.  When  your  verdict  goes  out  to  the  world  sanctioned  by 
the  indorsement  of  the  government,  rendered  by  a  jury  constituted  as  they  would 
have  it  constituted — a  jury  satisfactory  not  only  to  ourselves,  Ijut  to  them — it 
is  to  be  hoped  that  whether  this  verdict  be  for  or  against  the  prisoner,  it  will 
go  far  towards  settling  this  question  which  has  agitated  this  country  to  its  very 
centre  for  two  years  past  that  the  mysteries,  doubts,  and  uncertainties  which 
have  covered  the  tragic  event  to  be  here  considered  may  be  dispelled,  and 
the  people  may  arrive  at  last  at  some  intelligent  opinion  as  to  who  the  really 
guilty  parties  are. 

We  come  to  you,  gentlemen,  with  a  profound  conviction  of  the  entire  inno- 
cence of  the  accused — a  conviction  which  is  not  one  of  sympathy,  or  such  as 
counsel  ordinarily  feel  for  the  parties  they  represent,  but  one  at  which  we  have 
arrived  after  a  sober,  careful,  pains-taking  investigation,  extending  over  a  period 
of  many  weeks,  and  covering  a  space  of  country  extending  from  the  Canadas 
to  Mexico,  by  personal  conferences  with  witnesses  who  we  know  will  be  believed 
by  this  jurj  ;  by  conferences  with  men  of  unimpeachable  integrity — who  have  no 
interest  in  this  matter  except  to  render  to  you  the  truth,  and  notliing  but  the 
truth  ;  men  to  whom  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  is  a  stranger,  yet  who,  by  reason  of 
the  marking  hand  of  Providence,  have  been  pointed  out  step  by  step  as  persons 
who  could  account  for  the  absence  of  the  prisoner,  and  his  presence  at  another 
place  when  the  bloody  deed  took  place.  Surely,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  we 
may  be  pardoned  for  having  some  fervor  upon  the  subject  with  such  couTictious 
upon  our  minds — and  assuming  that  you  will  arrive  at  the  same  conclusions,  all 
we  ask  at  your  hands  is,  that  you  will  give  to  the  prisoner  the  full  benefit  of 


532  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

what  we  shall  adduce  in  his  behalf.  The  maxim  of  the  law  is,  that  the  prisoner 
is  innocent  of  all  offence  until  he  is  proven  to  be  guilty,  and  the  law  casts  that 
burden  of  proof  of  guilt  upon  the  government.  When  a  man  is  brought  into  this 
court  of  Justice  he  is  to  be  regarded  by  you  as  a  man  like  yourselves,  of  pure 
character  and  reputation,  with  ail  the  presumptions  of  iimocenre  around  him.  He 
stands  like  any  other  citizen  upon  tbat  constitution  which  secures  to  every  man 
the  right  of  a  full,  fair,  and  free  trial  before  a  jury  of  his  countrymen.  He 
appeals  to  you  as  a  fellow  citizen,  not  as  a  criminal,  not  as  a  felon,  but  to  ren- 
der to  him  justice  as  you  would  have  justice  rendered  to  you. 

What  has  the  learned  assistant  district  attorney,  who  opened  this  case,  done  ? 
He  arraigns  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  in  his  opening  speech,  before  a  single  item  of 
evidence  is  offered  to  you,  before  one  of  their  eighty  odd  witnesses  has  been  put 
upon  the  stand  ;  not  only  as  a  man  upon  whom  a  solemn  charge  of  a  crime 
committed  against  his  government  rests,  but  as  one  who  is  a  felon  of  the 
deepest  dye,  for  whom  there  is  no  adequate  punishment  this  side  of  perdition  ; 
a  man  whom  he  will  prove  to  be  the  party  who  was  the  mainspring  and  guider  of 
that  infamous  crime  He  arraigns  him  before  you  and  holds  him  up  to  public 
abhorrence  at  a  time  when,  according  to  my  conceptions  of  duty  as  a  prosecuting 
officer,  his  mouth  should  have  been  sealed  as  to  rhetorical  flourishes.  He  holds 
him  up  to  you  as  a  spectacle  to  be  gazed  at,  as  a  man  whose  heart  is  black 
beyond  expression,  a  demon  sprung  from  hell  itself.  He  could  not  paint  him  to 
you  in  worse  colors.  He  represents  him  to  you  with  all  this  crime  upon 
him,  as  a  coward,  Avho  put  other  people's  hands  to  do  the  dangerous  work, 
while  he  secured  his  own  ignominious  safety  by  flight;  as  a  man  who  was 
here  on  that  occasion  ;  who  calls  out  the  fatal  time  twice  in  succession  in 
front  of  the  theatre  ;  who  despatches  his  emissaries,  desperadoes  equal  in  wick- 
edness to  himself,  but  not  having  the  same  managing  minds,  to  do  his  cruel  work 
— that  work  upon  the  head  of  this  government — which  shrouded  the  whole  nation 
in  mourning.  He  represents  him  as  taking  his  flight,  and  tells  you,  gentlemen, 
— and  I  hold  him  to  account  for  it — that  he  will  trace  him  from  station  to  sta- 
tion and  from  place  to  place  in  his  flight ;  that  he  will  show  you  the  man  of 
whom  he  bought  his  disguise  the  very  night  he  escaped  ;  he  would  follow  him 
from  here  to  Canada,  leaving  on  his  route  traces  of  his  flight  which  could  not  be 
mistaken  ;  he  would  prove  the  length  of  time  he  remained  there  ;  that  he  would 
follow  him  in  his  fliglit  further,  across  the  water  to  the  old  country,  to  England, 
to  France,  and  to  Italy,  shuddering  with  fear,  with  the  consciousness  that  the 
avenger  of  blood  was  upon  his  track  ;  that  he  would  follow  him  to  the  papal  ser- 
vice, and  show  you  how  at  last  the  friend  of  his  youth,  moved  by  the  honorable 
consideriition  of  a  desire  to  have  a  felon  of  such  a  caste  as  he  brought  to  jus- 
tice, moved  by  those  lofty  considerations  which  would  make  a  man  sacrifice  his 
own  brother,  was  instrumental  in  bringing  him  in  chains  to  this  bar  to  be  adjudged 
by  you. 

What  is  the  condition  of  the  case  now  1  Has  the  learned  gentleman  kept  his 
pledge?  I  propose  to  show  you  before  I  take  my  seat  that  his  pledge  is  not 
kept,  and  let  him  settle  with  his  own  conscience  the  responsibility  for  the  course 
he  has  chosen  to  take. 

I  do  not  propose  in  the  discussion  of  this  matter  to  enter  into  any  debate  or 
speech-making  to  you  ;  I  have  a  simple  duty  to  discharge,  and  I  shall  endeavor 
to  do  it,  I  liope,  fearlessly,  and  with  such  a  degree  of  intelligence  as  will  enable 
me  to  present  the  case  to  you  for  your  consideration,  preparatory  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  evidence  of  the  defence.  I  have  no  further  reproaches  to 
cast  upon  the  other  side.  If  the  evidence  reproaches  them,  the  fault  is  with 
them  and  not  with  me. 

One  thing   I    wish   to   say  before   we  proceed.     Heinous  as  this  offence  is, 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  533 

its  moral  qualities  in  the  sight  of  the  Almighty  are  no  worse  than  when  the 
commonest  vagabond  in  the  street  is  slain  in  cold  blood.  I  am  as  well  aware 
as  my  learned  fiiend,  who  is  noting  this  proposition  of  the  distinction  drawn 
in  Holy  Writ  between  the  head  of  a  nation  and  a  private  individual,  but  in 
the  sight  of  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  dead  the  life  of  the  humblest  man  is 
as  precious  and  sacred  to  Him  as  the  life  of  the  K-)ftiest  citizen.  I  am  aware,  also, 
that  this  was  a  crime  struck  at  the  very  heart's  core  of  this  people,  and  1  need  not 
recall  to  your  minds,  you  citizens  of  the  city  of  Washington,  the  thrill  of  horror 
which  went  through  this  community  when,  on  the  morning  of  Saturday,  it  was  an- 
nounced. You  know  as  well  as  I  do,  that  men's  hearts  stdod  still  for  fear,  lest 
there  should  be  such  an  outburst  of  grief,  indignation,  and  rage  throughout  this 
land  that  men  would  be  swept  away  from  the  bounds  of  reason.  You  know 
how  people  sprang  to  their  feet  to  seek  out  the  offenders  who  had  thus  out- 
raged their  sacred  feelings.  The  great  thing  for  which  they  prayed  was  ven- 
geance. The  minister  of  God  in  his  pulpit  invoked  the  judgments  of  heaven 
upon  the  assassins.  Even  tender  women  became  changed  in  their  dispositions, 
and  longed  to  have  the  off'enders  brought  to  condign  punishment.  Nay, 
more;  not  only  tender  women  but  people  who  ought  to  have  the  attrib- 
utes of  tender  women,  shouted  for  revenge  upon  them  and  thousands  of  others. 
You  know  as  well  as  I  do  how  all  these  passions  swept  over  this  whole  country. 
You  know  what  exerlions  were  made  to  secure  the  arrest  of  the  off'enders.  You 
know  that  no  step  was  lelt  untried,  no  means  unapplied,  no  money  spared,  to 
secure  the  arrc'st  of  the  guilty  parties  ;  and  the  heart  of  every  good  American 
citizen  could  not,  from  its  inmost  depths,  help  approving  it.  Who  among  you 
would  have  failed  to  render  to  justice  either  of  these  parties?  Does  any  man 
fear  that  a  jury  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would  fail  to  render  back  for  punish- 
ment one  who  should  be  proven  to  have  been  guilty.  We  have  no  such  fear, 
and  we  have  no  fear  for  the  prisoner  on  that  score,  inasmuch  as  we,  of  all  men 
now  living,  have  had  the  best  opportunities  of  testing  his  iimocence. 

There  are  in  this  as  in  every  case,  certain  prominent  features  which  it  is 
important  to  keep  in  mind.  There  is  a  difference  between  us  and  the  learned 
counsel  on  the  other  side  in  reference  to  the  character  of  this  indictment  With 
these  questions  of  law,  however,  I  do  not  propose  to  perplex  your  minds  at  this 
stage,  but  simply  to  state  to  you  that  they  contend  there  was  a  conspiracy 
to  murder  the  pn-sident  of  the  United  States,  and  certain  members  of  his  cab- 
inet;  and  our  client,  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  was  one  of  the  conspirators  with 
John  Wilkes  Booth  and  others.  On  the  other  hand,  we  maintain  that  this  is  an 
indictment  for  murder  simply,  and  his  honor  has  at  least  allowed  their  theory  to 
tlie  extent  of  permitting  them  to  introduce  a  great  deal  of  evidence  which  we  un- 
derstand is  ap])licable  to  their  legal  view  of  theindictment.  I  propose,  therefore, 
to  take  the  ca.-e  upon  their  view  and  lo  treat  it  as  a  conspiracy  to  murder — the 
murder  accomplished,  and  that  this  party  being  charged  as  one  of  the  conspir- 
ators if  proven  to  be  guilty  of  conspiring,  is  as  much  guilty  as  the  man  who  struck 
the  fatal  blow.  For  that  purpose  then  we  are  obliged  lo  ii!(|uire  into  the  question  of 
who  the  conspirators  Avere.  There  is  no  doubt  that  John  Wilkes  Booth  was  one  of 
them.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Lewis  Payne  was  another.  As  to  Atzerodt  or 
Herold,  there  may  be  some  doubt.  A^  to  Mrs.  Surratt,  we  hope  to  satisfy  you 
that  a  grave  error  has  been  made  in  her  case.  As  to  the  prisoner  at  tlie  bar, 
we  take  issue  openly  before  you  and  declare  him  to  be  innocent  of  the  offence. 

Now,  gentlemen,  what  are  the  circumstances  upon  which  we  rely  to  show  this 
conclusion'?^  The  learned  gentleman  who  leads  the  prosecution,  who  is  its  head 
and  mind,  if  his  colleagues  will  pardon  me  tln^  expression,  announced  to  you 
that  he  would  trace  back  this  conspiracy  to  18G3.  So  far  as  any  evidence  has 
gone  he  has  not  fulfilled  his  promise  to  you  and  the  court,  except  you  grope 
outside  of  this  case  for  suppositions,  beliefs,  apprehensions,  and   suspicions  that 


534  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

some  sucli  tiling  existefl  before  1864.  So  far  as  my  memory  now  serves  me, 
the  only  witness  who  tftkes  it  further  back,  is  one  John  Tippett,  a  mail  carrier 
through  Sunattsville,  of  whom  we  shall  have  something  further  to  say.  When 
did  the  conspiracy  begin  is  a  point  to  which  we  shall  direct  inquiry.  We  shall 
show  who  were  the  parties  to  it.  When  did  Surratl's  introduction  take  place  1 
In  January,  I  S6o,  according  to  the  testimony' of  Weicliman  in  Seventh  street ;  so 
that,  gentlemen,  I  maintain  that  for  the  purposes  of  this  case  you  are  not  at  liberty 
to  go  behind  January,  1865,  because  Wilkes  Booth,  the  head  and  front  of  this  affair, 
the  man  who  you  must  believe  from  their  evidence  was  the  person  who  planned  the 
thing  in  whole,  Wilki  s  Booth  only  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  prisoner  at  the  bar 
in  January  l&6o.  Under  what  circumstances  ?  The  pri-oner  even  now  only 
twenty-three  years  of  age,  left  his  college  in  1863  or  early  in  1864,  a  youth  just 
starting  out  into  life,  having  no  knowledge  or  experience  of  the  world,  leaving 
behind  him  a  reputation  such  as  any  young  man  might  envy,  came  to  the  city 
of  Washington  after  the  death  of  his  father,  and  by  that  event  was  drawn  into 
the  position  of  husband  for  his  mother  and  father  for  his  sister.  There  were  but 
three  of  them,  for  Isaac,  the  l)rother,  was  away  in  Mexico  or  Texas,  and  had  been 
for  years.  He  is  the  friend  of  his  mothei',  the  son  of  her  counsel,  her  man  of 
business.  They  moved  to  the  city  of  Washington  and  took  the  house  on  H 
?treet,  leaving  what  little  property  they  had  still  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  the 
rents  to  be  collected  and  the  farm  to  be  looked  afier.  He  was  the  man  who  was 
to  be  her  factotum.  In  all  the  relations  of  life  no  Avitness  has  ever  impugned  him, 
no  witness  has  ever  intimated  to  you  that  he  was  otherwise  than  a  faithful  son, 
that  he  was  other  than  diligent  in  looking  after  his  mother's  business,  that  he 
was  faithful  at  all  times  until  suspicion  is  cast  upon  him  by  witnesses  upon  the 
stand  that  something  went  wrong  with  him  after  he  made  the  acquaintance  of 
John  Wilkes  Booth. 

Who  was  John  W'ilkes  Booth  ?  One  whose  name  and  reputation  will  go  down 
to  the  latest  times  in  this  country  associated  with  the  most  ati-ocious  assassination 
ever  committed.  Let  us  hope,  gentlemen,  at  least,  that  at  the  bar  of  tliat  offended 
God  to  which  he  has  gone,  there  will  be  found  some  mitigation  of  his  offence.  Let 
us  hope  at  least  that  his  mind  was  unhinged  from  its  reason,  that  he  had  become 
in  the  strictest  sense  such  a  fanatic  as  not  to  appreciate  the  enormity  of  the  act 
which  he  contemplated  and  committed.  He  was  a  man  of  polished  exterior, 
pleasing  address,  highly  respectable  in  every  regard  ;  received  into  the  best  circles 
of  society  ;  his  company  was  sought  after,  exceedingly  bold,  courteous,  and  con- 
sidered generous  to  a  fault,  a  warm  and  liberal  hearted  friend,  a  man  who  had 
obtained  a  reputation  upon  the  stage  second  to  none  of  his  age  in  this  or  any 
other  country.  'J'he  prisonei',  perhaps  of  all  persons  the  most  susceptible  to  the 
influences  of  such  a  person,  and  he  of  all  men  whom  he  could  meet,  the  most 
likely  to  ingratiate  himself  with  him — his  very  reputation,  his  distinction  as  an 
actor  was  enough  to  draw  the  heart  of  this  young  man  toward  him.  We  find 
bim  visiting  at  the  house,  we  find  them  frequently  together,  complimentary 
tickets  sent  and  accepted  to  go  to  the  theatre,  and  these  relations  existing  from 
time  to  time  up  to  a  month  or  five  weeks  before  the  tragedy  occurred.  There  was 
nothing  surely  in  this  association  calculated  to  bring  any  reproach  upon  the  priso- 
ner at  the  bar  except  from  subsequent  events,  and  for  these  subsequent  events  thi-y 
they  rely  chiefly  upon  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Louis  J.  Weichmau  and  Mr.  John 
M.  Lloyd. 

Gentlemen,  we  propose  to  introduce  countervailing  testimony  in  reference  to 
these  two  witnesses,  and  I  will  therefore  direct  your  attention  to  some  of  tUe  ma- 
terial points  in  which  we  will  contradict  them. 

Mr.  John  M.  Lloyd  is  an  avowed  drunkard,  avowedly  so  intoxicated  on  the 
evening  of  the  14th  of  April  as  not  to  know  whether  he  fell  down  at  the  feet  of 


TRIAL    OF    JOIIX    H.    SURRATT.  535 

^frs.  Sunatt  or  stood  up  like  a  man,  and  conversed  witli  her,  as  not  to  know 
whether  he  grovelh^d  like  a  beast  or  retained  the  attributes  of  manhood.  Mr. 
Llovd  tells  you  that  on  the  llth  of  April  he  met  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  road, 
on  the  Tuesday  preceding-  the  Friday  of  the  niurdi'r,  and  had  a  conversation 
with  her  about  property.  She  was  then  on  her  way  down  to  his  house  on 
business  connected  with  ht^r  property  ;  that  on  the  following  Friday,  April 
14,  after  he  had  been  to  the  cnurt-house  at  Marlboro'  and  indulged  himself 
in  drinking  to  excess,  he  returned  and  found  her  at  the  house.  I  shall  not 
rehearse  the  testimony — that  is  the  business  of  the  gentlemen  who  sum  up 
— but  merely  refer  to  the  fact  that  he  testifies  to  a  certain  package  left  at 
that  house  by  Mrs.  Surratt  for  him,  which  package  when  subsequently  opened, 
contained  articles  which  he  described  to  you.  This  witness  has  no  recollection 
that  Mrs.  Offutt,  a  witness  summoned  by  the  government,  but  not  put  upon  the 
stand,  was  in  the  house.  He  has  no  recoUectinn  of  what  transpired  in  the 
house.  We  will  show  to  you  that  when  Mrs.  Surratt  arrived  there  with  Mr. 
AVeichman  she  alighted  from  the  carriage  and  was  received  in  the  house  by 
;Mrs.  Ot^'utt  ;  that  she  told  Mrs.  Uffutt  the  object  of  her  visit  to  that  place,  and 
handed  her  at  the  same  time  a  package,  as  anybody  else  would  have  handed 
casually  a  package  to  be  delivered  to  Mr.  Lloyd.  Mrs,  Offutt  will  tell  you 
what  transpired  at  that  interview,  in  reference  to  this  letter  to  which  3Ir.  Weich- 
mau  has  testified  She  will  tell  you  who  else  was  in  the  room  with  these  par- 
ties ;  she  will  tell  you  where  Mrs.  Surratt  met  Mr.  Lloyd,  and  what  Mr.  Lloyd's 
condition  Avas  if  it  were  necessary  after  his  own  statement  upon  the  stand  ; 
she  will  tell  you  about  how  long  she  was  there  ;  she  will  tell  you  wliat  trans- 
pired as  the  parties  went  through  the  front  door  of  the  house  and  drove  away. 
You  will  be  able  to  see  through  the  whole  of  it,  and  that  her  testimony  is  en- 
tirely consistent  Mith  the  theory  of  the  innocence  of  Mrs.  Surratc,  and  absolves 
her  of  complicity  in  this  affair. 

Bear  in  mind,  gentlemen,  that  in  the  investigation  of  this  case  there  is  a  prin- 
ciple running  tlirongh  it  from  begiiming  to  end,  by  which  you  will  test  the  evi- 
dence that  is  produced,  and  to  which  standard  the  prosecution  must  come  before 
you  can  convict;  that  they  must  not  only  prove  to  your  satisfaction  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  prisoner  was  guilty  of  the  offence  charged,  but  more 
than  that,  tliey  must  prove  to  your  satisfaction  that  you  cannot  account  for  the 
evidence  upon  any  other  reasonable  theory  than  that  of  guilt. 

The  next  witness  in  this  connection  is  Mr.  Louis  J.  Weichmau.  But,  before 
I  pass  to  him  1  should  state  to  you  that  ^Irs.  Snrratt's  circumstances  at  that 
time  were  very  much  straitened,  a  fact  which  will  appear  in  evidence,  and  that 
her  object  in  going  to  this  place  was  to  obtain  money  with  which  to  provide 
for  tlu!  necessiu-y  expenses  of  her  family.  "VVe  will  show  you,  moreover,  that 
although  Ml.  John  ]\[.  Lloyd,  the  next  morning  after  the  affair,  denied  all 
knowledge  of  Booth  and  Herold,  they  had  made  their  escape  through  Surratts- 
ville.  He  conversed  with  them.  We  will  prove  that  on  that  morning,  when 
adjured  by  every  consideration  by  a  friend,  who  had  known  him  for  years,  to  tell 
the  truth,  he  caded  on  God  to  witness,  he  knew  nothing  of  these  men.  What 
his  inducement  was,  whether  it  was  fear  of  his  being  suspected  of  complicity 
in  the  matter,  is  a  consideration  which  is  not  a  proper  subject  of  iiuiuiry  at  present. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  testimony  of  \V(Mchman,  a  clerk  in  the  War 
Department,  a  quondam  student  of  divinity — a  gentleman  who  stood  almost  in 
the  relation  of  a  son  to  this  murdered  woman,  a  man  who  lived  in  that  house 
and  enjoyed  all  the  hospitalities  and  close  relations  which  are  permitted  to  a 
person  upon  such  familiar  terms  with  the  inmates.  ]Mr.  Louis  J.  Weichmau 
the  principal  witness  for  the  government  on  that  other  trial,  a  man  whose 
dastard  heart,  terrified  by  the  position  in  which  he  found  himself,  led  him  to 


536  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

sacrifice  the  innocent.     What   does  he  tell  you  upon  this  subject  1     ''I  was 
with  Mrs.  Snrratt  on  the  11th  of  April,  and  we  met  Mr.  Lloyd.     Mrs.  Siirratt 
there    whispered  to    Mr.  Lloyd  ;     they  held    a    whispered   conversation ;    she 
leaned  forward  out  of  the  buggy  and  she  and  Mr.  Lloyd  whispered  together.'' 
Mr.  Lloyd  has  contradicted  him  on  that  subject  himself.     We  will  contradict 
him  by  two  other  witnesses,  present  at  that  interview,  and  who  witnessed  the 
suspicious    circumstances   attending — if  there  were  any — connected  with   this 
event  and  immediately  preceding   the  tragedy,   and  introduced  for   that  pur- 
pose by  the  learned  counsel.     As  you  will  recollect  they  asked  for  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  was  done,  of  this  and  other  witnesses,  whether  the  conversa- 
tion was  in  a  natural  tone   of  voice,  or  whether  it  was  in  a  whisper  between 
the  parties.     What  next?     He  tells  you  that  on  the  14th  of  April  he  took 
her   down    to  Surrattsville,    he    do(  s    not    recollect  seeing    Mrs,   Otfut  there, 
nor  Mrs.  Jenkins,  nor  anybody  else  but  Mrs.  Suriatt  and  Mr.  Lloyd.     He  did 
not  even  see  the  package  delivered,  but  he  tells  you  that  before  he  left  Wash- 
ington, when  about  getting  into  the  buggy,  she  handed  him  a  package  which 
she  told  him  she  was  afraid  would  get  wet,  or  must  not  be  allowed  to  get  wet. 
Remember,  gentlemen,  he  is  a  stranger  to  all   these  circumstances,  an  innocent 
party.     He  tells  you  that  sitting  at  the  tea  table  the  night  of  the  assassination, 
he  heard   the  steps  of  a  man  coming   up  the  front  steps  ;  the  door  bell  rang, 
that  Mrs.  Surratt  went  to  the  door.     We  will  prove  to  you  that  is  a  distinct, 
positive  falsehood  ;  Mrs.  Surratt  did  not  leave  the  table,  she  did  not  answer  that 
bell  ;  she  did  not — as  he  states — go  up  and  introduce  the  man  into  the  parlor, 
where  she  had  a  conversation  with  him,  but  she  remained  seated  at  the  table 
until  they  came  up  from  tea  when  the  man  had  gone.     We  will  put  upon  the 
stand,  if  necessary,  the  person  who  answered  that  bell,  and  we  will  show  to  you 
the  person  who  came  to  the  door  that  night  Avas  not  one  of  the  conspirators,  nor 
is  he  suspected  of  being  such,  but  is  a  respectable  citizen  ;  he  was  not  introduced 
into  the  parlor,  and  his  errand  was  of  the  most  friendly  .and  proper  character. 
Weichman's  inuendo  was  that  it  was  J.  Wilkes  Booth,  or  Herold,  or  Atzerodt,  or 
Payne,  and  that  Mrs.  Surratt  sat  at  the  tea  table  with  expectant  ear,  waiting  for 
the  man   she  had  told    him  on  the  road  she  expected  to  see  that  night.     That 
is  the  use  they  make  of  it. 

We  will  prove  to  you,  further,  the  exclamation  with  which  he  charges  Mrs. 
Surratt,  when  the  officers  came  to  the  house  early  in  the  morning,  was  not 
uttered;  the  conversation  which  took  place  in  the  parlor  after  the  detective 
officers  left  that  night,  in  the  presence  of  three  or  four  ladies,  exists  only  in  the 
fiction  of  the  gentleman's  tongue.  The  parties  were  there  together,  but  no  such 
conversation  ever  took  place  ;  no  such  statement  was  ever  made  to  Mrs.  Surratt  by 
her  daughter,  and  no  such  statement  was  ever  made  by  her  to  her  daughter  that  she 
believed  Juhn  Wilkes  Booth  was  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God  for  the  pun- 
ishment of  Abraham  Lincoln,  or  that  God  had  sent  this  visitation  upon  this 
people  for  their  pride  and  licentiousness.  We  will  contradict  him  not  by  one 
witness  only,  but  by  several,  uj)oa  that  point.  We  will  further  prove  that  on 
the  morning  of  the  15th,  when  they  sat  at  breakfast,  his  statement  that  he  an- 
nounced his  purpose  to  disclose  what  he  knew  of  this  affiiir,  that  he  left  the 
table  for  that  purpose,  and  Anna  Surratt  remarked  at  that  table  that  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  was  no  more  than  a  negro  in  the  army,  was  utterly  false.  We 
will  show  you  witnesses  who  were  present  at  that  breakfast  table;  we  will  bring 
the  man  who  accompanied  him  out  of  the  house  and  down  to  the  headquarters 
of  the  police,  and  prove  his  whole  account  of  the  affair  a  wicked  lie,  I 
say  wicked — all  lies  are  Avicked — but  this  one,  which  struck  at  the  lives  ot  his 
fellow  creatures,  the  eflPect  of  which  was  to  bring  misery  and  ignominy,  such  as 
the  world  has  rarely  seen,  upon  the  people  sitting  at  that  table,  upon  an  inno- 
cent young  woman,  whose  heart  was  wrapped  up  in  her  mother,  was  of  all  lies 
most  wicked.     We  shall  show  you  what  circumstances  trauspired  at  the  station- 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT,  537 

house ;  we  stall  show  you  his  pretended  detail  as  a  special  detective  in  this 
search  was  nothing  more  tlian,  and  was  intended  to  be  nothing  but,  a  card  for  his 
transportation  in  that  pursuit ;  that  he  knew  all  the  time  although  the  irons 
were  not  riveted  upon  his  hands,  nor  chains  upon  his  feet,  yet  the  hand 
of  the  law  was  upon  him.  and  that  he  could  not  depart.  We  shall  show  that  he 
never  returned  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  afterwards,  because  he  was  not  allowed  to  do  so  ; 
that  the  officers  of  the  law  never  lost  sight  of  him ;  that  he  was  never  finally 
discharged  till  he  had  rendered  his  account  to  the  military  commission.  We 
shall  show  to  you,  on  his  return  home  before  breakfast  on  15th  April,  in 
company  with  a  certain  gentleman,  a  most  remarkable  declaration  was  made  to 
him  by  this  man  Weichman,  and  the  terrible  trepidation  which  he  manifested  at 
the  time.  We  will  show  there  was  occasion  for  this  trepidation  and  this  decla- 
ration— a  man  who  out  of  his  own  mouth,  if  in  no  other  way,  is  shown  to  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  visiting  these  parties,  of  being  on  familiar  terms  with  Atze- 
rodt,  of  lending  him  his  hat,  of  lending  him  his  coat,  of  being  seen  in  the  street 
with  Booth  several  times,  of  obtaining  from  Booth  on  the  veiy  night  preceding  the 
assassination,  or  of  going  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  from  him,  the  use 
of  his  horse  and  carriage.  We  will  show  to  you  whether  he  had  occasion  to  feel 
himself  bound  up  with  these  parties,  not  only  on  account  of  his  living  at  that  house, 
but  because  as  a  clerk  in  the  War  Department  he  obtained  information  which 
he  furnished  to  persons  who  ran  the  blockade,  in  order  to  furnish  that  informa- 
tion to  the  South  of  the  number  of  prisoners  in  the  hands  of  the  government. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  know  nothing  of  this  matter,  but  there  is  to  me  a  theory 
which  appears  consistent  with  the  innocence  of  all  parties  to  which,  if  I  do 
not  allude  now,  it  is  simply  for  reasons  of  prudence.  But  there  is  a  theory  to 
which  your  attention  will  be  directed  at  the  proper  time,  that  will  enable  you  to 
see  that  all  these  circumstances  may  exist,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  entire  free- 
dom from  any  complicity  in  taking  the  life  of  the  President,  or  of  any  other 
living  being. 

These  are  the  principal  witnesses  as  to  the  conspiracy,  and  I  think  you  will 
agree  with  me  upon  that  subject.  The  next  step  is  the  natural  one  of  bringing 
Surratt  here  on  the  night  ot  the  assassination,  and  the  day  preceding,  because 
the  gentlemen  are  well  acquainted  with  the  rule  of  law  that  unless  he  was  here 
aiding  and  abetting  in  that  offence,  in  some  way  affording  aid  to  these  parties, 
or  where  he  could  furnish  aid,  if  necessary,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  their 
common  design,  he  cannot  be  convicted  of  this  offence  ;  and  therefore  they  find 
it  necessary  to  prove  that  which  does  not  exist  in  reality:  that  John  Surratt 
was  here  on  the  day  and  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  for  if  he  were  in 
Europe  at  that  time  it  will  not  be  contended  for  a  moment  he  could  be  guilty 
of  this  offence.  If  he  were  in  Buffalo,  not  acting  in  concert  with  them,  it 
could  not  be  contended  for  a  moment  that  he  was  guilty.  He  must  be  near 
enough,  if  occasion  should  arrive  for  his  services,  to  be  called  in  to  carry  out  the 
scheme.  Who  do  they  produce  to  establish  ihat  fact  ?  They  produced,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  case,  Sergeant  Joseph  M.  Dye,  an  utter  stranger  to  us,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  perhaps  the  most  material  fact  in  the  case.  He  was 
subjected  to  a  long  examination,  and  when  dismissed,  after  his  cross-examina- 
tion, he  disappears  like  one  of  those  phantoms  which  he  saw  in  his  dreams. 
Sergeant  Dye  is  the  man  who  described  to  you  the  tall  man,  the  genteelman, 
the  villainous  man  whom  he  saw  in  front  of  the  theatre  that  night.  Now, 
admitting  that  Sergeant  Dye  was  sitting  upon  the  platform  watcliing  these 
men,  and  saw  suspicious  circumstances  about  them,  admitting  that  he  saw 
the  three  men  there  he  describes,  we  will  utterly  destroy  his  testimony 
by  producing  to  you  the  tall  man ;  we  will  show  you  the  genteel  young  man, 
and  we  will  show  to  you  further  the  villainous  man.  We  will  show  to  you, 
^m  moreover,  the  man  who  looked  into  the  back  of  that  carriage.  They  tell  us 
^H  that  the  tali  man  was  the  prisoner  at  the  bar;  we  will  show  you  how  much  like 


538  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT. 

him  he  looks.  We  will  show  you  Sergeant  Dye  did  not  sit  upon  that  plat- 
form as  he  says  he  did.  We  will  take  a  step  further,  gentlemen,  and  produce 
the  man  that  called  the  time,  "ten  minutes  past  ten,"  in  an  audible  tone  of  voice 
in  front  of  the  theatre.  Will  you  have  any  difficulty  with  that  witness  1  If 
you  still  have  we  can  show  you  the  record  of  his-  indictment  for  passing  coun- 
terfeit money,  for  which  he  was  arraigned,  and  for  some  purpose  the  case  was 
procured  to  be  continued.  We  will  show  you  further,  accompanying  him  to 
his  native  home  if  necessary,  that  men  from  his  own  native  town  would  not 
believe  him  upon  his  oath.  We  will  do  more,  we  will  follow  him  up  H  street 
that  night  and  show  to  you  by  a  person  who  was  adjoining  that  house,  sitting 
on  the  front  step  from  half  past  nine  till  eleven  o'clock,  wide  awake,  not  a 
soul  passed  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  and  that  no  such  conversation  as  he  states 
took  place  with  anybody  at  an  open  Avindow  in  that  house.  Nay,  more,  we  will 
show  to  you  by  the  records  of  the  Smithsonian  Institute,  or  by  a  record  of  some 
equally  reliable  scientific  character,  the  condition  of  the  moon  at  that  time 
was  such  it  was  utterly  impossible  for  any  man  to  have  seen  what  he  says 
he  saw  on  H  street  at  that  hour.  The  person  who  was  near  by  will  say  it  was 
so  dark  that  at  a  distance  of  forty  feet  he  could  not  tell  whether  a  man  was 
white  or  black. 

Who  else  do  they  produce  ?  David  0.  Reed,  a  notorious  gambler  for  twenty 
years.  We  will  contradict  him  out  of  his  own  mouth  with  reference  to  his 
seeing  Surratt  on  that  day.  We  will  produce  to  you  the  record  of  his  in- 
dictment in  this  court  for  a  penitentiary  offence,  which  is  yet  to  be  answered  to. 
We  will  prove  to  you  by  respectable  citizens  of  the  city  of  Washington,  men 
whom  you  Avill  believe  as  against  him  or  any  other  man,  he  is  unworthy  of 
belief  upon  oath. 

Who  is  the  next  man?  Sergeant  Robert  M.  Cooper,  who  was  with  this  man 
Dye.  I  think  it  is  necessary  only  in  reference  to  this  matter  to  state  his 
testimony  is  so  indistinct  relating  to  Surratt,  it  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  pursue 
this  inquiry  further  than  to  say  that  in  what  he  says  relative  to  these  men,  about 
whom  his  suspicions  were  aroused,  he  will  be  contradicted  ;  and  he  will  be 
contradicted  by  a  person  who  says  that  no  such  conversation  as  testified  to 
took  place  in  front  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  H  street,  and  the  condition  of  the 
moon  was  such  that  it  could  not  have  taken  place  as  described. 

Who  is  the  next  man  ?  John  Lee.  We  will  contradict  John  Lee  out  of  his 
own  mouth.  We  will  prove  that  he  stated  to  more  than  one  person  he  never 
saw  John  Surratt  or  knew  him — that  when  he  was  in  hot  pursuit  of  the 
conspirators  down  in  the  lower  counties,  he  stated  he  did  not  know  John  H. 
."rurratt ;  he  did  know  Atzerodt  and  would  recognize  him  if  he  met  him.  We 
will  show  that  the  very  day  before  he  took  the  stand  in  the  witness  box,  he 
made  a  similar  declaration  in  this  city,  and  again,  that  he  said  he  had  already 
narrated  all  that  he  knew  about  this  affair. 

Let  me  observe  here,  gentlemen,  that  I  mention  the  names  of  no  witnesses  in 
these  connections,  for  obvious  reasons,  but  the  witnesses  are  in  Washington,  and 
they  will  [»rove  this  man  John  Lee  is  not  entitled   to  any  credit  upon  his  oath. 

Who  next.'  William  E.  Cleaver,  just  fresh  from  jail,  admitted  to  bail  since 
you  have  been  sworn  in  this  case ;  committed  thei'e  for  murder  by  the  most  foul 
and  cruel  means  that  could  be  applied,  and  that,  too,  upon  the  person  of  a  young 
and  tender  girl — such  a  crime,  as  manhood  would  blush  to  mention  in  such  a 
presence  as  this.  He  has  had  his  trial ;  we  can  show  to  you  that  he  had 
his  conviction,  but  after  a  motion  for  a  new  trial,  which  has  been  granted,  he 
has  been  admitted  to  bail,  lie  is,  however,  still  to  answer  to  the  charge  of 
manslaugliter.  He  is  the  man  who  is  so  delicate  about  his  honor  that  he  did 
uot  like  to  tell  you  where  he  has  been  for  some  time  past,  but  who  finally  turns 
out    the   friend    and    companion  of  the   most   infamous    of  all    men,    Sanford 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  539 

Gonover,  alias  Dunham.  Manipulated  by  him  in  jail,  brought  into  conference 
with  certain  dignitaries,  taught  his  lesson,  what  he  was  to  swear  to,  and  then 
swears  before  you  he  saw  John  Surrattthat  day,  and  gives  other  very  important 
testimony,  if  he  is  to  be  believed.  William  E.  Cleaver,  we  will  show  to  you, 
has  stated  that  he  never  would  be  brought  to  trial  again,  that  there  was  a  strong 
arm  stretched  over  him  for  his  protection,  and  he  states  to  another  man,  that  in  all 
human  probability  he  never  will  be  tried  again.  "William  E.  Cleaver,  we  will 
prove  to  you  by  a  host  of  witnesses,  if  necessary,  taken  from  this  community, 
has  a  reputation  so  bad  that  he  is  not  to  be  believed  upon  his  oath. 

Who  is  next?  A  fit  man  to  be  successor  to  William  E.  Cleaver.  Benjamin 
W.  Vanderpool,  a  gentleman  belonging  to  a  distinguished  femily  of  New  York, 
and  a  member  of  the  New  York  bar.  Heaven  save  the  mark  if  he  is  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  New  York  bar  !  He  says  he  is  as  a  voluntary  witness  to  testify 
against  Surrfttt,  and  recognizes  him  immediately.  He  has  a  free  conference 
with  the  distinguished  gentleman  who  leads  this  case  upon  the  other  side,  is 
put  upon  the  stand,  and  swears  positively  he  saw  John  H.  Surratt  on  the 
14th  of  April  at  a  certain  concert  saloon  which  you  know  with  me  must  have 
been  the  Metropolitan  Hall,  on  the  south  side  of  Pennsylvania  avenue,  be- 
tween p]leventh  and  Twelfth  streets,  the  only  concert  hall  in  that  immediate 
neighborhood.  There  is  none  between  Tenth  and  Eleventh.  He  swears  he 
went  in  there  on  this  J  4th  of  April,  and  saw  Booth  sitting  at  a  round  table  with 
four  others — a  woman  dancing  at  the  lower  end  of  the  hall ;  and  next  to  Booth 
sat  a  man  who  was  the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  He  identifies  him  distinctly  and  posi- 
tively. We  will  prove  Benjamin  W.  Vanderpool  said  in  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington and  elsewhere,  he  never  knew  Surratt  or  saAV  him  that  he  knew  of, 
and  when  he  testified  that  he  came  here  spontaneously,  without  a  summons,  in- 
duced only  by  those  influences  which  excite  the  heart  of  a  good  citizen,  in 
assisting  to  arraign  and  punish  the  guilty,  he  had  in  fact,  received  a  telegram 
from  tliis  gentleman  (pointing  to  the  district  attorney)  calling  him  here,  and 
he  (the  district  attorney)  did  not  contradict  him  on  the  stand.  We  shall 
show  you  that  so  far  from  being  a  partner  of  Chauncey  Shaffer,  a  gentl<^man 
of  the  highest  reputation,  he  Avas  simply  allowed,  without  being  turned  out,  to 
occupy  a  desk  in  that  gentleman's  office,  and  was  forthwith  turned  away 
after  delivering  this  testimony,  because  that  distinguished  gentleman  knew  of 
this  telegram  We  will  prove  to  you,  if  they  will  allow  us,  that  Chauncey 
Shaffer,  with  the  honor  becoming  a  gentleman  of  character,  addressed  duplicate 
letters  to  tlie  officers,  representing  the  government,  and  to  the  counsel  for  the 
prisoner,  stating  these  facts,  and  yet  they  would  not  furnish  that  statement  to 
this  jury  when  called  upon  by  us  in  open  court.  We  coald  show  to  you  Ben- 
jamin W.  Vanderpool  is  utterly  infamous,  if  we  need  no  other  proof  than  this. 
We  will  show  to  you — and  pardon  me  if  I  repeat  that  expression  so  often,  for 
it  seems  to  be  a  necessity  of  the  case — there  was  never  a  round  table  in  Metro- 
politan Hall,  and  there  was  not  any  entertainment  there  on  Friday  afternoon, 
the  14th  of  April ;  that  only  on  one  or  two  occasions  since  the  establishment 
has  been  in  operation,  have  they  had  entertainments  on  Friday  afternoons. 
This  man  tells  you  he  was  thei-e  on  that  day  between  the  hours  of  one  and 
three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  Do  you  wonder,  gentlemen,  we  have  been  at 
times  betrayed  into  indignation,  seemingly  not  justified,  perhaps,  in  the  eyes 
of  those  who  are  not  ac(|uainted  with  the  facts  that  exist  in  our  knowledge  1 
I  think  we  will  need  no  apology  upon  that  subject  after  the  facts  arc  presented 
to  yoxi. 

Who  was  the  next  witness  ?  One  who  under  the  existing  state  of  things  in 
this  country  has  been  rescued  from  a  state  of  degradation  and  exalted  to  the 
highest  position.  But  she  is  to  be  recalled  and  I  will  pass  her  for  the  present, 
simply  calling  attention  to  the  name  because  she  is  in  this  list.  l"ou  will  have 
on  difficulty  with  her  testimony.     We  desired  to  recall  her  almost  immediately 


540 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SUKRATT. 


after  she  left  the  stand,  and  his  honor  would  have  allowed  us  to  do  so,  hut  the 
government  interposed  an  objection  to  having  this  and  other  witnesses  recalled 
for  the  purpose  of  cross-examination,  to  lay  the  foundation  for  their  contradic- 
tion— witnesses  who  Avere  produced  from  that  room  (pointing  to  witness  room) 
examined  and  dismissed  before  we  could  get  an  opportunity  to  inspect  their  his- 
tory at  all.  We  desired  a  list  of  their  names,  but  they  M'ould  not  furnish  them 
to  las ;  they  were  dismissed  at  once,  on  their  leaving  the  stand — witnesses  on 
whom  they  relied  to  establish  their  most  important  point  in  the  case,  a  case  in 
which  a  human  life  was  at  stake.  What  has  followed  within  the  last  two  or 
three  days  ?  It  was  plainly  becoming  apparent  our  character  for  sincerity 
in  this  matter  was  pledged  for  the  destruction  of  the  testimony  of  one  or  more 
of  these  people,  and  lest  when  they  came  to  you  upon  the  summing  up  it  should 
appear  that  their  testimony  was  demolished,  they  determined  to  fortify  it.  They 
therefore  bring  in  still  other  witnesses  upon  the  same  subject  at  a' late  period  of 
the  trial. 

First  we  have  Charles  H.  M.  Wood,  a  barber.  There  is  a  certain  investiga- 
tion proceeding  which  will  make  it  apparent  to  you,  not  that  Wood  has  sworn 
falsely,  knowingly  so,  but  he  is  clearly  mistaken  ;  for,  from  the  nature  of 
things,  the  same  person  could  not  have  been  in  two  different  places  at  the  same 
time.  He  is,  therefore,  wrong  in  saying  that  J.  Wilkes  Booth  and  his  party, 
the  prisoner  being  among  them,  shaved  at  his  barber  saloon  at  the  time  men- 
tioned. I  pass  that  matter  now  because  it  will  be  fully  explained  before  you, 
merely  remarking  this  witness  says  he  never  saw  either  of  these  parties  before, 
except  John  Wilkes  Booth  ;  two  years  or  more  have  elapsed  since  he  shaved 
the  men,  to  whom  he  testifies,  that  morning,  one  of  whom  he  is  quite  sure  was 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar ;  and,  mark  you,  he  says,  "  I  gave  him  a  clean  shave." 

The  next  is  Charles  Ramsdell,  brought  from  Massachusetts  to  prove  what  ? 
On  the  morning  of  the  15th,  having  been  in  town  over  night  with  a  comrade,  on 
going  out  of  camp  two  miles  out  of  town,  he  saw  a  horse.  You  recollect  how  he 
describes  a  man  afterwards  came  up  riding  that  same  horse,  who  inquired  if  he 
could  get  through  the  pickets.  He  then  recollects  there  was  a  coiu-ier  coming 
from  Washington,  and  the  man,  as  soon  as  he  saw  the  courier,  rode  off  rajiidly, 
and  said  he  would  try  it  any  how.  He  talked  with  the  man  on  horseback.  The 
prisoner  is  requested  to  rise,  not  to  show  his  face  to  the  witness,  but  his  back, 
and  he  says,  "  I  think  I  have  seen  that  back  before  on  the  back  of  that  horse." 

Frank  M.  Heaton  is  the  next  gentlemen,  a  clerk  in  the  land  office,  and  I 
dpubt  not  a  highly  respectable  man.  He  saw  no  face  that  night  when  he 
was  down  in  front  of  the  theatre,  that  attracted  his  attention.  There  was  a 
crowd  there  waiting  to  see  the  President.  Last  Thursday  week  he  came  into 
the  court-room,  and  thinks  he  sees  a  distinct  resemblance  between  the  prisoner 
at  the  bar  and  a  face  he  saw  before  Ford's  theatre  that  night.  Who  would  you 
bang  upon  that  testimony  1 

The  next  is  Theodore  Benjamin  Rhodes,  an  itinerant  clock-maker,  &c.,  a 
jack-at-all-trades.  Rhodes  tells  you  that  he  visited  the  theater  on  the  14th 
April  about  mid-day.  We  will  show  you  the  front  door  of  that  theatre  was 
always  kept  locked  during  the  day,  and  nobody  was  allowed  to  go  in.  We 
will  show  you  that  from  twelve  o'clock  till  two  they  were  occupied  in  rehearsal, 
aud  if  this  man  had  been  in  the  theatre  he  would  have  been  seen  by  all  parties. 
We  will  shoAV  you — the  government  has  shown  to  you — the  stick  which  he 
describes  as  larger  in  the  middle  and  bevelled  down  to  the  ends,  which  he  says 
ISurratt  whittled  down  and  stuck  in  that  hole,  was  not  the  stick  found  in  the  box. 
The  government  has  produced  the  bar.  We  will  show,  further,  this  witness 
was  not  in  the  box  with  the  man  who  arranged  it.  We  shall  put  the  man 
himself  upon  the  stand  before  you  to  testify.  Nay,  more,  gentlemen,  you  will 
recollect  out  of  his  own  mouth  he  is  condemned,  when  he  tells  you  he  sat  in 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  541 

the  front  row  of  the  dress-circle  and  locates  the  box  in  which  the  lamented 
President  sat  that  fatal  night,  on  the  left-hand  side  of  the  stage  when,  in  fact,  it 
is  the  right-hand  side.     He  did  not  learn  his  lesson  well. 

And  there  is  another  point.  He  tells  you  when  he  was  standing  there, 
looking  at  the  stage,  the  person  who  was  in  this  private  box  opened  the  door 
about  six  inches,  closed  it,  and  went  out;  he,  thinking  he  would  like  to  look  in 
there,  being  of  an  inquiring  mind,  walked  round  and  goes  into  this  box,  and 
then  sees  a  person  come  in  whom  he  supposes  was  the  same  person  who 
went  out.  The  man  addresses  some  remark  to  him,  and  he  declares  it  was  the 
prisoner  at  the  bar.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  prove  to  you  by  the  diagram  of  the 
theatre  this  man  could  not  have  gone  out  of  that  box  without  he  walked  out 
precisely  the  same  door  through  which  Mr.  Rhodes  walked  in ;  there  was 
no  back  staircase  from  that  box  ;  there  was  but  one  door  kept  open,  and 
that  door  leads  into  a  little  narrow  passage  not  much  wider  than  was  sufficient 
to  allow  a  person  to  walk;  that  the  entrance  to  the  box  is  from  that  pas- 
sage, and  the  passage  ends  with  a  brick  wall.  How  could  he  get  out  except 
through  the  door  where  this  man  would  meet  him  ?  We  will  show  you  the 
only  way  of  getting  up  into  that  box  is  by  going  down  through  the  parquette, 
U|)  behind  the  dress-circle  through  this  little  door,  and  then  into  the  box.  We 
want  Rhodes  to  be  recalled. 

1  think,  gentlemen,  I  have  done  with  all  the  men  or  women  who  testi- 
fied to  John  Surratt  being  here  that  day.  If  he  was  not  here,  I  appeal  to 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  to  know  if  there  is  anything  else  in  this  case, 
any  other  testimony  which  can  connect  him  with  guilt  iu  this  transaction. 

Here,  gentlemen,  comes  in  our  part  of  the  case.  I  have  stated  to  you  our 
conviction  of  this  man's  innocence.  Pardon  me  if  I  briefly  call  your  attention  to 
the  reason  of  that  statement.  John  Surratt  was  in  Canada  in  April,  1865. 
From  that  place  he  went  to  Europe,  and  after  an  absence  of  two  years  he  is 
found  in  the  papal  service.  The  man,  who  is  said  to  have  received  from  the 
confederate  government  the  sum  of  §100,000  is  so  driven  by  poverty  as  to  take 
service  as  a  common  soldier,  in  the  ranks  of  his  Holiness  the  Pope.  At  that 
place  he  is  discovered  to  be  the  man  who  is  charged  with  complicity  in  this 
affair.  He  is  followed  to  Egypt;  he  is  brought  iu  irons  to  this  country  and  at 
the  end  of  nearly  two  years,  is  lodged  in  the  common  jail  of  this  county. 
He  is  there  seen  and  talked  with  by  his  counsel  in  this  case.  He  is  allowed  no 
other  connection  with  the  outside  world  except  through  his  counsel  and  his 
sorrowing  sister.  To  us,  from  time  to  time,  he  imparts  his  story  as  we  are 
enabled  to  get  it  from  his  own  lips ;  a  tale,  simple  in  itself,  but  which  has 
been  faithfully  followed  by  us  from  that  time  to  this.  It  is  the  chart  by  which 
his  whole  evidence  has  been  discovered,  directed,  and  shaped,  and  as  one  of  those 
who  have  been  interested  in  effecting  these  developments,  let  me  say  to  you 
that  never  before  has  it  been  my  fortune  to  find  a  simple  story  so  corroborated 
by  facts,  over  which  he  could  have  no  control.  Witnesses  have  been  found 
who  know  transactions  which  he  supposed  it  would  be  impossible  to  verify  ;  men 
of  position  and  standing  in  their  own  communities,  whom  you  cannot  doubt ; 
who  come  for  the  simple  purpose  of  establishing,  from  time  to  time,  each  one  of 
the  individual  facts  which  he  recollects. 

We  will  take  him,  from  some  time  in  the  month  of  March,  1865,  down  to  the 
city  of  Richmond,  we  will  bring  him  back  from  there  to  the  city  of  Washington 
on  the  3d  of  April,  when  witnesses  have  sworn  he  passed  through  this  city. 
He  arrived  in  this  city  on  the  night  of  the  3d  and  went  to  his  mother's  house, 
from  there  he  went  down  to  the  Metropolitan  hotel,  or  some  other  hotel,  and 
went  thence  by  cars  to  the  north  on  the  4th  of  April.  He  went  direct  to  Mon- 
treal, landed  there  and  registered  himself  at  St.  Lawrence  Hall,  according  to 
their  proof,  and  conceded  on  both  sides,  on  the  6th  of  April.     He  settled  his 


542 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN"   H.    SUREATT. 


bill  there  on  the  12th  of  x\pril.  That  is  also  a  couceded  fact;  from  thence,  he 
went  on  a  certain  mission.  They  tell  ns  he  went  in  response  to  a  letter  or  tele- 
gram received  from  J.  Wilkes  Booth,  and  produce  Dr.  McMillan  to  prove  it, 
summoning  him  to  "Washington. 

We  shall  show  that  he  did  not  go  near  Washington,  that  he  was  not  within 
four  hundred  miles  from  Washington  at  any  time  after  he  came  to  Montreal  on 
the  6th  of  April,  until  he  was  brought  here  in  the  Swatara. 

We  will  show  you,  gentlemen,  further,  that    instead   of  making  these   trips 
from   Richmond   to  Washington,  from   Washington  to  Montreal,  and  back   to 
WashiugtOii  and  Richmond,  weaving  his  web,  as  would  a  spider,  as  ray  distin- 
guished friend  describes  him,  he  never  was  in  Richmond  but  twice  ;   once  on  a 
visit  to  friends,  and  the  second  occasion,  the  one  to  which  I  have  referred.     Can 
you  complain  of  our  feeling  indignant  with   such  representations.     We  shall 
show  you  where  he  went,  who  sent  him,  and  for  what  purpose  he  went;  where 
he  was  on  the  13th  of  April,  on  the  night  of  the  13th,  on  the  14th  of  April,  on 
the  night  of  the  14th,  on  the  loth  of  April,  on  the  16th  of  April,  and  take  him 
back  to  Montreal.     I  pledge  myself  to  show  to  you  that  he  was  not  at  any  time 
during  this  period  within  about  400  miles  of  the  city  of  Washington,     And  he  had, 
so  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  no  communication  with  any  of  the  parties  who  were 
charged  with  this  offence.     We  shall  show  you  that  he  went  to  a  certain  town 
where  he  registered  his  name  in  his  usual  way  as  John  Harrison,  as  he  did  in 
jMontreal,  his  first  and  middle  name,  leaving  off  the  Surratt  ;  that  he  remained 
there,  discharging  the  commission  with  which  he  was  entrusted  over  the  14th  of 
April,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  15th  first  heard  of  this  tragedy ;  that  he  left 
that  place  and  went  to  an  adjacent  town,  starting  in  the  afternoon  and  arriving 
there  at  night,  where  he  remained  until  Sunday  afternoon.     Now,  gentlemen,  I 
state  to  you    he  registered  at  that  place,  but  I  state   also  that  the  register  of 
that  hotel,  Avhere  he  originally  put  it,  has  most  mysteriously  disappeared  and 
cannot  be  found,  and  even  the  proprietors  and  servants  of  that  hotel  are  scattered 
in  every  direction.     But  we  will  bring  to  your  view  certain  telling  facts  con- 
nected with  his  stay  in  that  town  which  indelibly  fix  him  at  that  point  at  that 
time,  by  witnesses,  gentlemen  of  character,  outride  of  the  hotel.     We  will  show 
when  he  left  this  point,  he  stopped  at  a  place  on  one  of  the  great  arteries  of 
travel  in  this  country,  through  which  thousands  of  persons  continually  pass,  and 
in  direct  commmiication  with  Washington  by  telegraph.     At  that  point,  we  find 
his  name  registered  in  the  same  characters  in  which  it  is  at  Montreal.     We  will 
follow  him  back  to  the  city  of  Montreal,  where  he  arrived  on  the  18th  of  April. 
IsTay.  gentlemen,  you  shall  not  be  able  to  tell  us  that  he  might  have  been  con- 
cerned in  this  affair,  and  then  only  gone  to  these  places  for  the  purpose  of  eluding 
suspicion.     We  will  show  you  certain  facts  and  circumstances  which  rendered  it 
absolutely  impossible  for  him  either  to  have  taken  the  cars  here,  or  to  have 
taken  a  carriage,  crossed  over  to  Baltimore  and  then  taken  the  train.     We  will 
show  you  such  interruption  of  railroad  travel  as  utterly  precluded  the  possi- 
bility of  reaching  these  points.     Both  interruption  by  the  elements   and  by  the 
authorities  to  prevent  the  e.-~cape  of  any  of  the  desperadoes. 

After  he  arrives  in  Montreal,  it  is  not  material  for  the  purposes  of  this  case 
what  became  of  him,  but  injustice  to  him  let  me  say  that  he  was  kept  concealed 
in  that  city ;  he  was  allowed  no  intelligence  through  the  newspapers  or 
otherwise,  except  that  the  trial  here  was  progessiug  favorably  in  behalf  of  his 
mother ;  and  was  driven  frantic  with  grief  when  at  last,  on  the  eve  of  the 
execution,  he  discovered  that  she  had  been  convicted  and  was  about  to  be  exe- 
cuted ;  and  was  only  prevented  \>y  force  from  returning  to  the  city  of  Wash- 
ington to  surrender  himself. 

Flight,  says  the  gentlemen,  is  evidence  of  guilt.  Flight !  Who  would  not 
have  fled  in  such  a  time  as  that  if  he  had  known  John  Wilkes  Booth  and  had 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATt'  543 

been  with  him  at.  all !  The  first  intimation  he  had  of  his  being-  cliavgod  with 
complicity  in  this  affair  was  in  the  city  of  Albany  where  he  read  it  in  a  news- 
paper. He  at  once  went  to  Canada  from  that  point,  not  because  he  was  a  fugi- 
tive from  justice,  but  you  all  know  as  I  do,  that  justice  dropped  her  scales  when 
she  entered  that  building  at  the  other  end  of  Four-and-a-half  street.  Such  was 
the  height  of  public  excitement,  such  was  the  agitation  in  this  country,  such 
the  grief  and  desire  for  vengeance,  that  no  man  stood  safe  who  had  a  remote 
suspicion  of  any  connection  with  these  parties  resting  upon  his  skirts. 

1  have  said  to  you,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  necessary  to  follow  him  beyond 
Montreal.  It  may  be  for  some  purposes.  We  will  be  able  to  introduce  upon 
this  stand  a  credible  witness  who  has  seen  and  conversed  freely  with  Dr.  McMil- 
lan upon  this  subject,  whose  memory  is  not  at  fault,  inasmuch  as  his  recollection 
of  the  conversation  was  reduced  to  writing.  We  will  show  you  he  made 
statements  to  that  witness,  directly  the  reverse  of  what  he  made  on  this  stand. 
We  will  show  you  that  St.  Marie,  a  man  whom  we  dismissed,  to  their  astonish- 
ment, without  any  cross-examination,  is  a  person  utterly  devoid  of  character, 
and  unworthy  of  belief.  And  having  thus  disposed  of  these  gentlemen,  we 
shall  leave  the  matter,  so  far  as  the  testimony  is  concerned,  in  your  hands. 

I  would  like,  gentlemen,  to  say  a  word  or  two  in  reference  to  another  point. 
An  effort  has  been  made  in  this  case,  I  fear  not  very  much  to  the  honor  of  my 
country,  to  sacrifice  justice  and  innocence.  An  effort  has  been  made  to  cloud 
with  suspicion  the  escape  of  Surratt,  as  they  call  it,  to  Canada,  by  testimony  in 
regard  to  a  certain  handkerchief  said  to  have  been  found  at  Burlington.  We 
will  be  able  to  show  you  that  handkerchief  was  not  dropped  by  Surratt, 
but  by  another  person,  an  emissary  of  the  government  in  pursuit  of  Surratt, 
carrying  this  as  one  of  the  tokens  by  which  he  might  recognize  him  ;  a  person 
who  knew  him  in  youth ;  and  the  government  knevt  it  was  dropped  in  that 
ivay.  I  do  not  charge  these  gentlemen  with  it.  I  speak  of  the  government  as 
a  government;  but  certainly  they  ought  to  be  able  to  satisfy  your  minds  and 
their  own  consciences,  as  to  whether  they  can  escape  the  responsibility  of  that 
knowledge. 

We  might  show  you  certain  testimony  in  reference  to  that  Lon  letter,  charg- 
ing the  government  with  the  knowledge  of  it's  being  a  forgery,  but  I  am  ad- 
vised that  it  would  not  be  evidence. 

Permit  me,  in  conclusion,  to  ask  your  attention  to  one  other  fact,  perhaps  the 
most  pregnant  fact  of  all,  and  one  which  will  be  the  most  satisfactory  to  your 
minds.  Independent  of  the  declarations  of  Booth  made  in  his  own  diary, 
as  well  as  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  other  conspirators,  Payne,  relieving 
Mrs.  Surratt  of  all  complicity  in  this  charge,  we  will  produce  to  you  testimony 
showing  the  contents  of  articles  of  agreement  between  these  men  and  by  whom 
it  was  signed;  that  Mrs.  Surratt's  name  was  not  there;  that  John  II.  Surratt's 
name  was  not  there.  We  will  bring  you  this  testimony  directly  from  the 
mouth  of  the  chief  assassin,  immediately  before  the  commission  of  the  crime, 
but  not  discovered  until  too  late  to  rectify  it.  I  repeat,  we  will  show  the  con- 
tents of  that  paper,  Avhich  had  the  genuine  signatures  of  these  parties  attached, 
pledging  themselves  to  the  commission  of  the  offence,  and  then,  gentlemen,  we 
may  safely  ask  you  whether  you  believe  the  prisoner  to  be  guilty,  or  not  guilty, 
of  this  crime. 

The  witnesses  for  the  defence  not  being  in  court,  a  recess  was  taken  until 
Monday  morning  next,  at  ten  o'clock,  a.  m, 

Monday,  July  8,  1S67. 
The  court  met  at  ten  o'clock,  a.  m. 

Theodore  Bk.\jamin  Rhodes,  recalled  by  the  government  for  further  crosa- 
examination. 


544  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  When  you  were  examined  the  other  day,  I  do  not  think  yon  explained 
your  entrance  into  the  theatre  perfectly.  Please  explain  to  the  jury  how  you 
entered. 

A.  I  went  into  the  theatre  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs  by  the  door.  I  think  there 
was  an  entrance  near  the  ticket  box.  It  is  seldom  I  have  been  into  the  theatre. 
I  was  in  several  times  while  it  was  being  built.  At  this  time  I  went  because  I 
thought  perhaps  I  might  buy  a  ticket. 

Q.  No  matter  about  that ;  state  where  you  went. 

A.  I  went  in  at  the  right-hand  door.  I  went  up  a  small  stairway  to  a  small 
door,  which  I  pushed  open,  and  went  up  a  flight  of  staii'S  to  the  door  entering 
where  the  audience  is  seated. 

Q.  Then  you  went  into  the  main  entrance,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  There  is  more  than  one  entrance.  I  went  in  at  the  right 
hand  corner,  near  where  they  sell  tickets. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  box  as  you  went  in  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  did.  It  is  rather  an  impression  on  my  mind  that 
there  was  no  on,e  in  it. 

Q.  Then  you  went  up  a  flight  of  stairs  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  up  more  than  one  flight  of  stairs  1 

A.  I  could  not  tell  for  a  certainty.  I  believe  there  is  a  little  winding  stair- 
way ;  I  am  not  certain  about  that.  I  believe  it  goes  up  a  small  flight  of  stairs, 
and  then  turns  in  the  middle  to  go  on  to  the  second  floor ;  I  could  not  tell  for  a 
certainty. 

Q.  The  door  was,  open  through  which  you  entered  the  theatre  from  the  out- 
side? 

A.  The  outside  door  was  open.  I  am  now  speaking  of  another  door  up  a 
flight  of  stairs,  which  was  partially  open. 

Q.  Then  you  went  into  the  theatre  to  the  place  where  you  saw  a  man  open- 
ing the  door  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  went  partly  down  amongst  the  seats  and  looked  towards  the 
stage.     Just  then  I  heard  a  door  open  and  shut,  and  heard  some  one  in  the  box. 

Q.  When  you  heard  that  door  did  you  go  right  into  the  box  ? 

A.  I  went  right  into  the  box  ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  into  a  little  narrow  passage  ? 

A.  I  believe  when  I  saw  it  first  it  was  partly  open.  I  was  then  down  among 
thg"  seats. 

Q.  When  you  got  up  there  that  door  opened  right  into  the  box  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  into  it  you  saw  a  man  going  out  of  another  door  1 

A.  I  heard  him  retreating  back.  I  saw  the  door  worked  backwards  and  for- 
wards ;  that  was  the  reason  why  I  went  there.  When  I  came  up  there  I  heard 
steps  retreating  out  of  the  box,  going  further  back.  I  do  not  know  where  they 
went. 

Q.  Can  you  give  the  jury  any  idea  of  the  size  of  that  box  you  went  into  ? 

A.  I  should  think  the  front  of  it  was  about  as  wide  as  that  window,  (five  or 
six  feet,)  but  went  a  little  catering  like  toward  the  stage. 

Q.  As  you  stood  there,  you  could  see  right  oir  the  stage  into  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  there  was  a  curtain  down  :  I  do  not  know  what  you  call  it.  You 
could  see  a  portion  of  the  stage,  perhaps  five  or  six  feet,  in  front  of  the  curtain. 

Q.  From  where  you  stood,  you  could  see  plainly  on  to  the  stage  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  there  when  the  chair  was  brought  up  and  fixed  ? 

A.  I  was  there  when  the  chair  was  brought  up. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  545 

John  T.  Ford,  residence,  Baltimore  city,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  connected  as  proprietor  with  what  is  known  as 
Ford's  Theatre,  in  1865  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Was  the  building  under  your  direction,  or  not  ? 

A.  It  was  under  my  direction  and  supervision. 

Q.  Be  good  enough  to  look  at  that  diagram  (diagram  shown  witness)  and  state 
whether  it  is  a  correct  representation  ? 

A.  It  is  correct,  as  far  as  it  assumes  to  repi'eseut  the  dress-circle  and  the  boxes 
of  that  tier. 

Q.  Showing  the  stage  where  the  curtain  fell  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  the  dotted  line  shows  where  the  curtain  fell. 

Q.  Be  good  enough  to  explain  to  the  jury  where,  on  that  diag'ram,  what  was 
known  as  the  President's  box  is  situated.  The  theatre,  as  I  understand,  fronts 
on  Tenth  street? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  therefore  runs  back  in  depth  towards  the  east  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  stage  is  in  the  I'ear  part  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  farther  end  of  the  theatre,  fronting  towards  Tenth  street. 

Q.  And  the  entrance  to  the  theatre,  of  course,  from  Tenth  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  witness  here  explained  to  the  jury,  from  the  diagram  handed  him,  the 
various  positions  about  the  stage,  dress-circle,  and  boxes.  Witness  was  also  hand- 
ed another  diagram  showing,  the  sidewalk  and  curbstone  in  front  of  the  theatre, 
the  entrance  and  vestibule,  the  parquette,  lower  tier  of  boxes,  the  stage  and 
scenery  ;  which  he  also  explained  to  the  jury. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  during  the  day  the  front  doors  of  the  theatre  are  left 
open,  so  that  any  person  could  enter  the  theatre  1 

A.  The  front  door  is  left  open,  of  course,  to  give  access  to  the  ticket  office 
for  persons  who  desire  to  purchase  reserved  seats  or  to  buy  tickets.  The  doors 
leading  from  the  vestibule  into  the  theatre  are  always  closed.  That  is  done  in 
every  well  regulated  theatre;  and  it  was  kept  closed  during  the  day  in  this 
theatre. 

Q.  That  was  your  rule,  I  understand  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  an  inflexible  rule. 

Q.  State  the  hours  of  the  day  for  rehearsal  ? 

A.  The  hour  for  rehearsal  varied  at  different  times  to  suit  the  convenience  of 
the  stars  coming  to  the  theatre,  and  seldom  commenced  before  ten  o'clock. 

(This  examination  objected  to  by  Mr,  Pierrepont.) 

Mr.  Braulkv. — In  order  to  save  time,  I  will  not  press  it  farther. 

Q.  Was  the  curtain  of  the  theatre  ever  down  during  the  daytime  ?  State 
what  was  the  rule  or  practice. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont — a  general  practice  cannot  be  proven.) 

The  Court  said  it  would  be  proper  to  ask  whether  the  curtain  was  down  on 
that  particular  day. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  witness  was  not  in  the  city  on  that  day  ;  but  he  desired 
to  prove  from  the  proprietor  of  the  theatre  what  was  the  general  rule  iu  that 
respect. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  court. 

Ml.  Bradlkv  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  to  be  entered. 

Q.  State,  whether,  if  a  person  entered  that  theatre  in  the  daytime,  and  passed 


546  TKIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

round  into  what  was  called  the  President's  box,  into  the  first  door  leading  into 
the  double  box,  he  could  see  the  stage. 

(Question  objected  to  by  the  district  attorney,  as  calling  for  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion.    Objection  subsequently  withdrawn.) 

A.  He  certainly  could  not. 

Q.  Into  what  room  or  passage  did  that  door  open  ? 

A.  It  opened  into  a  passage  leading  to  the  President's  box. 

Q.  The  President's  box  comprises  two  boxes  with  a  portable  partition  dividing 
them? 

A.  It  had  been  so  constructed  as  to  be  easily  changed  into  one  box  on  state 
occasion,  or  when  any  large  party  wanted  a  large  box. 

Q.  Then  the  door  opened  into  a  narrow  passage  1 

A.  It  opened  into  a  passage.  In  that  passage  on  the  side  towards  Pennsyl- 
vania avenue  was  a  brick  wall.  On  the  other  side  was  a  door,  first,  which  open- 
ed into  box  number  seven,  and  another  door  farther  on  in  the  passage,  opening 
into  box  number  eight. 

Q.  Which  door  was  used  when  the  president  was  there  and  entered  that  box? 

A.  The  door  entering  into  the  passage. 

Q.  From  what  was  called  the  President's  box,  is  there  any  exit  except  the 
door  you  entered,  and  which  you  have  described  ? 

A.  None  except  in  front  of  it,  or  to  the  stage. 

Q.  And  a  man,  then,  who  came  to  that  door,  opening  out  into  the  theatre  from 
that  narrow  passage,  he  must  have  seen  any  person  who  was  there  unless  he 
jumped  over  on  to  the  stage? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  the  city  on  the  14th  of  April? 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  When  did  you  reach  here  1 

A.  I  reached  here  on  Tuesday  evening  after  the  14th  of  April. 

Q.  You  were  at  that  time,  by  permission  of  the  authorities,  at  Richmond  1 

A.  I  was.  I  was  there  on  Friday,  Saturday,  and  Sunday.  I  left  Richmond 
on  Monday  morning. 

Q.  You  were  visiting  some  relatives  there  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  my  mother's  brother. 

Q.  And  you  returned  on  Tuesday.  Now  state,  whether,  by  permission  of  the 
authorities,  you  made  an  accurate  examination  of  the  condition  o^  the  box,  doors, 
and  the  other  premises,  in  i-eference  to  the  assassination  1 

A.  I  did. 

By  Mr.  Pierrkpoxt  : 
Q.  What  day  was  that  ? 

A.  It  was  during  the  trial  at  the  Arsenal.  I  could  not  state  positively  the 
day.     It  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  month  of  May. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Now,  sir,  did  you  examine  the  condition  of  the  door,  and  of  the  mark  in 
the  wall  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  you  discovered  about  the  doors,  and  the  mark  in  the  wall  ? 

A.  I  found  a  hole  in  the  wall.  I  might  state  that  I  went  there  in  company 
with  a  Mr.  Raybold,  who  was  employed  in  the  theatre  as  an  upholsterer,  and 
with  Mr.  Plant.  I  examined  the  mark  in  the  wall  to  see  whether  it  had  been 
cut  or  merely  bruised  in.  I  found  it  was  merely  bruised  or  dug  out.  Here  was 
a  mark  round  it  indicating  that  paper  had  been  glued  over  the  place  on  the 
wall.  I  found  beside  this  mark  in  the  door,  a  little  hole  cut  with  a  gimlet  in  the 
panel,  cut  round  the  edge  with  a  knife  afterwards.  I  found  the  keeper  of  both 
locks  loose,  especially  of  the  door  leading  into  box  eight  at  the  end  of  the  passage 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  547 

By  a  Juror  ; 

Q.  "Was  the  hole  bored  into  tlie  door  that  led  into  the  passage  marked  E  on  the 
diagram,  or  through  the  door  from  the  passage  into  the  box  ? 
A.  It  was  the  box  door,  not  the  passage  door. 

By  Mr.  Bradlkv  : 

Q.  Look  at  the  stick,  [the  bar  used  on  the  night  of  the  assasiuation  to  close 
the  door,  heretofore  placed  in  evidence,]  and  state  whether  you  have  seen  it ; 
and  if  so,  explain  what  you  know  about  it  ? 

A.  I  remember  seeing  this  on  the  assassination  trials,  or  the  military  trial. 

Q.  That  is  the  stick  exhibited  there  as  the  stick  found  in  that  place  fastening 
the  door. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  state  whether  there  were  any  such  sticks  used  in  that  box? 

A.  After  my  attention  was  called  to  this  stick,  I  recognized  its  prior  use  at 
once  before  it  was  used  for  fastening  the  door.  It  is  an  upright  of  a  music 
stand.  If  I  may  be  permitted  to  state,  on  the  22d  of  February,  the  Treasury 
regiment — the  regiment  belonging  to  the  Treasury  Department — had  a  ball  at 
the  theatre  ;  and  near  that  box  in  the  dress-circle,  the  band  was  stationed  for 
cotillion  music.  We  found,  late  in  the  afternoon,  that  some  music  stands  were 
needed,  and  some  were  hastily  made.  I  believe  this  to  be  a  part  of  one  of  those 
music  stands. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  of  what  material  that  is? 

A.  It  is  pine. 

Q.  What  kind  of  pine  ? 

A.  I  believe,  white  pine. 

Q.  You  are  certain  it  is  not  oak  or  North  Carolina  pine? 

A.  I  am  not  much  of  a  judge  of  wood,  but  I  would  venture  an  opinion  upon 
that. 

Q.  You  see  that  a  portion  of  this  has  been  sawed  off.  Explain  how  it  was 
used  ? 

A.  A  block  eight  or  ten  inches  square  was  fastened  at  one  end  for  the  base, 
and  on  the  bevel  part  of  it,  another  board  was  fastened  to  hold  the  music. 

Q.  How  Avas  it  fastened  ? 

A.  Nailed  at  the  bottom  to  the  stand  and  on  the  top  to  the  shelf. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mr.  John  AVilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Well. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? 

A  I  have  known  him  from  childhood  up  to  the  time  of  his  death.  I  knew 
his  father  before  him,  and  knew  the  family.  He  resided  in  the  same  city  as 
myself. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  his  figure,  as  to  size,  and  whether  there  was  anything 
remarkable  about  him  to  attract  attention? 

A.  He  was  a  man  above  ordinary  height,  very  graceful  and  good  looking. 

Q.  As  to  his  vigor,  state  whether  he  cultivated  great  vigor,  and  whether  there 
was  anything  peculiar  about  his  hand  ? 

A.  He  was  known  to  the  profession  as  one  of  the  best  gymnasts  in  the  coun- 
try ;  he  was  a  man  who  took  a  great  deal  of  exercise.  He  visited  frequently 
the  gymnasium  of  Mr.  Brady.  He  was  a  very  excellent  swordsman,  and  Avas 
remaikable  on  the  stage  for  his  extraordinary  feats  Avith  the  broadsword".  His 
hands  were  quite  large,  large  enough  to  attract  attention  and  to  provoke  remark 
by  himself  and  others,  they  were  naturally  large  and  were  distended  by  exer- 
cise. 

Q.  Y..U  cannot  state  then  that  he  had  a  small  delicate  hand,  which  looked  as 
if  it  were  not  used  to  labor  ? 

A.  He  certainly  had  not. 


548  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUKRATT. 

Q.  Now  describe  the  character  of  his  face  and  features  ? 

A.  He  had  very  glossy  black  hair  ;  usually  woi'e  a  moustache,  which  was  the 
only  beard  he  wore  on  his  face.  In  his  face  he  was  generally  known  as  being 
remarkably  handsome.     His  complexion  was  rather  dark. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  particular  about  his  manner  of  conversing  1 

A.  He  Avas  an  extremely  fascinating  man  in  his  manner.  He  was  a  man  very 
fond  of  conversation — talked  a  great  deal — was  a  very  interesting  man  in  his 
conversation. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  wore  gloves  at  all  ?  Did  you  ever  see  hira 
wear  gloves  1 

A.  That  I  cannot  answer.  I  cannot  i-ecollect  seeing  him  with  gloves,  although 
he  might  have  often  worn  gloves  in  my  presence. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Booth's  hand-writing? 

A.  Very  well. 

Q.  Look  at  that  original  telegram  [telegram  before  placed  in  evidence,  dated 
New  York,  March  13,  1865,]  and  say  whether  it  is  in  the  hand-writing  of  Booth 
or  not  ? 

A.  I  should  say  it  was.     I  believe  that  to  be  liis  hand-writing. 

Q.  Look  at  that  [telegram  heretofore  placed  in  evidence,  dated  New  York, 
March  27,  1865,  exhibit  No.  6.] 

A.  That  resembles  his  hand-writing,  not  so  much,  though,  as  the  other.  It 
may  have  been  written  by  him.  The  signature  is  like  his,  although  the  word 
"  Wilkes  "  does  not  seem  to  be  perfect. 

Q.  Examine  that  [Exhibit  40,  telegram  to  Weichman,  dated  March  23,  1865.] 

A.  That  also  looks  like  his  writing. 

Q.  These  you  think  are  all  his  writing  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Look  at  that  [card  with  Booth's  name  on  it  and  "  Do  not  wish  to  disturb 
you;  are  you  at  home,''  heretofore  placed  in  evidence.] 

A.  That  is  also  in  his  hand-writing,  in  my  opinion. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  familiar  with  Booth's  hand-writing? 

A.  He  entered  my  employment  some  eight  or  nine  years  ago.  I  remember 
seeing  him  write  then,  and  from  that  time  to  the  time  of  his  death.  I  received 
letters  from  him,  and  have  seen  him  write  in  my  office.  In  fact,  I  have 
been  familiar  with  his  handwriting  from  his  boyhood  to  his  death. 

Q.  Examine  that  paper  (letter  signed  "  Charles  Selby,"  heretofore  placed  in 
evidence)  and  state  whether  you  believe  that  to  be  in  his  handwriting.  I  do 
not^^mean  his  natural  hand,  but  whether  it  is  a  disguised  hand  written  by  him. 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  is. 

Q.  State  the  reason. 

A.  It  strikes  me  as  being  unlike  his  handwriting  in  nearly  every  respect. 
The  condition  of  his  hand  would  interfere  somewhat  with  his  writing  in  a  hand 
of  a  style  of  this  sort      He  had,  as  I  stated  before,  a  large,  thick,  clumsy  hand. 

Q.  Are  there  any  letters  on  that  paper  which  you  can  select  that  bear  any 
resemblance  in  character  to  his  Avriting  ? 

A.  I  cannot  notice  anything  now.  If  this  were  shown  to  me  without  any 
reference  to  him,  I  should  think  he  was  the  last  one  who  could  have  written  it, 
even  if  I  had  been  told  it  was  disguised. 

(Examination  of  witness  suspended  for  the  present.) 

SuSA\  Ann  Jackson  (colored)  recalled  by  the  government  for  further  cross- 
examination. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  morning  after  the  assassination,  or  the  night  when 
the  President  was  assassinated,  some  gentlemen  coming  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house 
and  searching  it  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  549 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  tliem  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  "Were  tliere  any  colored  persons  in  the  house  besides  yourself  ? 

A.  No  one,  but  a  small  girl  and  a  small  boy. 

Q.  You  SRW  two  gentlemen  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Look  at  that  gentleman  with  a  red  moustache,  (pointing  to  detective  Mc- 
Devitt)  and  state  whether  you  saw  him  there  that  night. 

A.  No,  sir  ;  upon  my  word  I  never  saw  him.  These  gentlemen  came  to  my 
room,  and  I  heard  them  walking  through  tlie  house.  When  they  came  to  my 
room  I  laid  down  and  covered  my  head  up. 

By  Mr.  Pierrkpont  : 

Q.  Were  you  in  bed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  know  they  never  spoke  to  me.  All  the  words  they  said  when 
they  came  into  my  room  were,  that  it  was  a  very  particular  case  and  they  must 
be  very  particular  about  it. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Did  any  gentleman  that  night  ask  you  where  John  Surratt  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  no  gentleman  ever  mentioned  Mr.  Surr.att's  name  to  me  that 
night. 

Q.  Anybody  ask  you  anything  about  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  they  did  not. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  get  up  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  get  up.     I  was  lying  down  in  my  room. 

(4.  All  the  time  they  were  searching  the  house? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not  get  up. 

Q.  You  are  sure  you  did  not  tell  anybody  that  night  that  Mr.  Surratt  had 
not  been  there  for  two  weeks  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  give  you  my  word  that  no  one  ever  asked  me  such  a  question. 

Q.  And  there  was  no  other  colored  person  in  the  house  but  a  little  colored 
girl  and  a  little  boy  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  ever  telling  anybody  that  Mr.  Surratt  had  not  been  there 
for  two  weeks  before  this  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ]  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  colored  woman  by  the  name  of  Rachel  ? 

A.  Rachel  who  ? 

Question  repeated. 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  think  I  know  any  one  of  the  name  of  Rachel. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  woman  by  the  name  of  Eliza  Hawkins  1 

AVlT.\B^;s.  Where  does  she  live? 

Mr  Bradley.  I  cannot  tell  you. 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  have  any  acquaintance  with  anybody,  except  next  door, 
at  Mr.  Sweeney's. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  woman  by  the  name  of  Eliza  Seavers  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  You  never  told  any  gentleman  that  night,  or  you  never  said  to  any 
colored  woman,  Rachael  or  Eliza,  that  Mr.  Surratt  had  not  been  at  the  house  for 
two  weeks  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  said  you  were  going  to  get  anything  for  the  testimony  you 
gave  in  this  case,  or  for  being  a  witness  ? 

A.  Me,  sir.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not.     I  never  expect  to  get  anything. 


550  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  You   never,  at  any  time,  either  at  that  time  or  afterwards,  told  Eachel  or 
Eliza,  that  Mf.  Surratt  had  not  been  in  that  house  for  two  weeks  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Examination  of  John  T.  Ford,  resumed  : 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  the  ruling  of  the  court  as  to  whether  he  would  be  al- 
lowed to  examine  witnesses  on  such  points  as  he  had  then  reached,  in  following 
the  line  of  examination  laid  out  by  the  prosecution,  recalling  witnesses  subse- 
quently at  other  points,  or  whether  he  would  be  compelled  to  follow  the  ex- 
haust rule. 

The  Court  replied  that  he  might  take  his  own  course  in  the  examination  of 
his  witnesses. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  I  want  you  to  explain  to  the  jury  the  relative  position  of  the  entrance  of 
the  door  to  the  ticket  office  and  the  wooden  platform  in  front  of  the  theatre  erec- 
ted for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  persons  coming  there  in  carriages  to  get  to  the 
theatre. 

A.  [Explaining  from  the  diagram.]  This  is  entirely  coi-rect  here.  The  plat- 
form is  constructed  about  eight  feet  in  width,  one  end  resting  upon  the  curb- 
stone, and  the  other  extending  into  the  street.  Letter  A  refers  to  the  passage 
at  the  side  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Where  does  that  passage  lead  to  ? 

A.  To  the  stage,  for  the  convenience  of  actors  and  professional  men. 

Q.  That  comes  outside  to  the  rear  of  the  theatre  1 

A.  It  goes  to  the  rear  of  the  audience  room,  and  from  there  to  the  rear  of  the 
stage. 

Q.  Who  made  these  plats  1 

A.  Mr.  Gilford,  the  man  who  built  the  theatre. 

Q.  You  are  familiar  with  all  the  positions  and  localities  ? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q-  And  do  you  tell  the  jury  that  they  are  correct,  faithful  representations  of 
the  localities  marked  upon  them  ? 

A.  I  have  examined  them  carefully  before  to-day,  and  I  find  no  mistake  in 
them.     As  far  as  I  know,  they  are  correct. 

(The  diagrams  referred  to  placed  in  evidence.) 

Q.  Point  the  jury  to  the  entrance  door  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  The  entrance  is  marked  here  by  the  letter  C.  The  ticket  office  is  at  the 
right  hand  as  you  enter. 

Q.  XoAv  tell  the  jury  where  this  clock,  of  which  we  have  heard,  is  ? 

A.  The  clock  is  perhaps  seven  or  eight  feet  high,  on  the  wall  in  the  rear  of 
the  passage  as  you  enter.  There  are  three  doors  from  the  vestibule  leading  into 
the  theatre,  to  allow  persons  to  come  out  more  rapidly  than  they  go  in. 

Q.  In  order  to  see  that  clock  during  the  performance  in  the  theatre,  what 
door  would  you  enter  ? 

A.  In  order  to  make  myself  better  understood  I  should  state  that  there  is  a 
temporary  door  covered  with  oil  cloth  or  with  canvas,  placed  at  the  entrance 
from  the  lobby  in  order  to  preserve  the  warmth  of  the  lobby.  It  was  used  on 
all  occasions  except  when  the  theatre  was  closed,  when  the  large  doors  were 
shut.  The  large  door  is  always  open  during  the  time  of  performance.  After 
we  commence  selling  tickets,  until  the  avxdience  leave  the  theatre,  these  doors 
are  open  against  the  walls  of  the  theatre.  Then  there  is  an  inner  door,  the  tem- 
porary one  which  I  have  described,  such  as  are  frequently  used  iii  public  places, 
churches,  &c. 

Q.  And  this  is  the  door  through  which  you  would  go  during  the  performance 
in  order  to  see  the  clock  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  551 

A.  Yes.  You  would  go  through  the  opening  marked  C — through  the  tem- 
porary door, 

Q,  Now,  on  which  side  is  Pennsylvania  avenue? 

A.  On  this  side,  (explaining  from  diagram.) 

Q.  And  the  theatre  fronting  west  ?  Now  tell  the  jury  whether  or  not  that 
wooden  platform  of  which  you  have  spoken  is  above  this  entrance  or  below  it  ? 

A.  It  stood  between  the  entrance  door  and  the  upper  door,  and  occupied,  I 
suppose,  one  third  the  width  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Then  the  entrance  door  is  in  the  centre  of  the  building  1 

A.  It  is  not.     It  is  nearer  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  How  near  the  entrance  door  would  the  southern  edge  of  that  platform  be 
on  a  straight  line  ? 

A.  Presuming  I  was  sttinding  in  the  door,  and  this  representing  the  upper 
wall,  the  platform  Avould  commence  about  where  Mr.  Bradley  sits,  extending  up 
in  the  direction  of  F  street.  (Witness  explained  by  reference  to  various  locali- 
ties in  the  room.) 

Q.  Supi)ose  you  were  sitting  on  the  southern  side  of  the  platfoi-m,  and  a  man 
was  standing  in  the' entrance  door,  turning  one-third  of  his  person  to  the  right, 
would  he  or  not  have  his  back  directly  towards  the  man  so  sitting  on  the  south 
side  of  the  platform  ? 

A.  He  would. 

By  a  Juror: 

Q.  Could  you  see  the  clock  without  going  inside  the  door  ? 
A.  Not  unless  the  door  covered  with  canvas,  I  have  referred  to,  was  entirely 
away.     Then  you  could  see  it  by  standing  directly  up  to  the  door. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  But  if  that  door  was  not  entirely  away  then  you  could  not  see  the  clock 
without  going  in  ? 

A.  You  could  not  unless  you  went  into  the  vestibule. 

Q.  Was  that  door  there  when  you  had  charge  of  this  theatre  ? 

A.  It  was  intended  always  to  be  there. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr,  Pikrrepont  : 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  Washington  in  April? 

A.  My  impression  is  I  left  it  on  Monday  or  Tuesday,  before  the  assassination. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  First  to  Baltimore,  afterwards  to  Fortress  Monroe,  and  then  to  Richmond. 

Q,  When  did  von  get  back  to  Washington  ? 

A,  The  Tuesday  following  the  assassination. 

Q.  You  were  gone  about  a  week? 

A,  About  a  week. 

Q.  And  during  that  whole  week  you  did  not  see  Ford's  theatre  at  any  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  know  what  door  was  open  and  what  was  shut  during  that 
time,  do  you  ? 

A.  I  am  not  aware  that  I  do. 

Q.  Now  this  desk  (pointing  to  the  clerk's  desk)  faces  the  same  way  as  the 
theatre  did.  Here  is  the  vestibule — there  is  the  entrance  door  behind  tlie  judge. 
Now  point  where  the  clock  was? 

A.  Over  Judge  Wylie. 

Q.  When  you  got  into  the  vestibule,  if  the  door  was  open,  you  could  see  the 
clock  ? 

A.  When  you  were  in  the  vestibule  you  could. 

Q.  There  was  no  trouble  about  it  I 

A.  No  trouble  about  it. 


552  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.    SUKRATT. 

Q.  Will  you  look  at  this  bar,  (bar  heretofore  placed  in  evidence.)     Do  yon 
know  anything  of  that  piece  tied  to  it  ? 

A.  I  can  only  tell  through  what  I  have  heard. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  more  about  the  bar  than  you  do  about  that  end 
Of  it  ? 

A.  I  can  recognize  the  bar  better  than  I  can  the  piece;  but  I  can  recognize 
the  piece  as  having  been  probably''  sawn  from  the  bar. 

Q.  You  think  it  was,  do  you  ? 

A.  I  have  no  doubt  about  it. 

Q.  You  believe  that  piece,  when  the  bar  was  against  the  door  on  the  night  of 
the  murder,  was  on  here? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Look  at  this  book,  (diary  of  Booth,  heretofore  placed  in  evidence)  and 
state  in  whose  hand-writing  you  think  it  is  ? 

A.  The  first  line  I  would  recognize  as  Booth's  immediately. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  of  the  second  ? 

A.  It  looks  likes  his  hand-writing.     I  should  say  it  was. 

(Page  of  the  diary  referred  to  exhibited  to  the  jury.) 

Q.  Now  look  at  that  page;  do  you  think  it  is  Booth's  hand-writing  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  the  jury  whether  you  think  Booth,  with  his  big  clumsy  hands, 
could  have  written  that  in  your  opinion  ? 

A.  I  recognize  the  characteristics  of  his  hand- writing  there. 

Q.  Do  you  recognize  that  as  a  clumsy  hand  ? 

A.  It  shows  awkwardness  in  the  formation  of  the  letters. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  an  awkward,  clumsy  hand  ? 

A.  It  is  not  a  perfect  hand-writing. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  a  clumsy  hand  ? 

A.  To  some  extent. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  is  less  clumsy  than  the  Charles  Selby  letter  1 

A.  I  think  that  is  a  better  hand-writing. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  Charles  Selby  letter  is  a  less  clumsy  hand-writing 
than  the  diary? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is. 

Q.  Do  you  say  that  the  Charles  Selby  letter  is  written  in  a  natural  hand  ? 

A.  I  am  not  an  expert  on  that  subject,  but  to  the  best  of  my  opinion  it  is  very 
unhke  anything  I  have  ever  seen  Booth  write. 

Q.  And  it  was   so  intended,  I  presume.     You  have  given  a  description  of 
Booth  as  a  very  handsome  man.     He  was  a  man  of  a  very  fine  appearance  was 
he  not? 

A.  To  some  extent. 

Q.  Very  careful  in  his  dress  ? 

A.  Very  fastidious. 

Q.  He  was  a  dandy  in  his  dress  was  he  not  ? 

A.  Not  to  that  full  extent.     He  was  very  careful  in  his  dress. 

Q.  Was  he  not  extreme  in  the  care  of  his  dress  and  person  ? 

A.  He  was  not  foppish. 

Q.  I  do  not  ask  you  whether  he  was  foppish.     Was  he  not  extreme  in  the 
care  of  his  person  and  dress  ? 

A.  I  did  not  think  him  extreme.     He  dressed  in  good  taste. 

Q.  He  dressed  in  careful  taste,  did  he  not  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  And  was  careful  in  his  dress  and  was  clean  in  his  person,  was  he  not  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Was  he  careful  as  to  the  kind  of  boot  he  wore,  in  order  to  show  a  nice, 
neat  foot  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT.  553 

A.  His  foot  was  large. 

Q.  Was  it  a  uice,  neat  foot  I 

A    I  do  not  think  it  was. 

Q.  Did  he  wear  a  uice  boot  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  A  careful  boot  ? 

A.  He  appealed  to  be  very  careful. 

Q.  Was  not  his  tailor  an  artiale  in  the  manufacture  of  his  dress  ? 

A.  He  appeared  to  be  carefully  appareled. 

Q.  And  what  do  you  say  as  to  his  other  appearance  ?  Do  you  think  he 
neglected  his  hands  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  his  hands  were  hard,  black,  and  rough  like  those  of  a  laborer? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  were  white  and  soft  like  those  of  a  gentleman  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  should  think  they  were  between  the  two. 

Q.  Do  you  think  they  Avere  brown  ? 

A.  His  hands  were  apparently  half  as  large  again  as  mine. 

Q.  I  am  now  talking  about  the  color.  Were  they  clean,  white,  and  carefully 
preserved,  or  were  they  black,  rough,  and  coarse  like  those  of  a  laborer  ? 

A.  He  kept  his  hands  clean,  I  believe. 

Q.  As  carefully  as  he  did  his  person  ? 

A.  He  kept  his  hands  clean. 

He.\rv    Clay   Ford,  residence,   Baltimore,  sworn  and   examined : 
By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  In  April,  1865,  in  what  business  were  you  engaged  ? 

A.  I  was  in  Washington  city,  the  treasurer  of  Ford's  theatre,  on  Tenth  street. 

Q.  In  the  absence  of  your  brother,  who  had  the  superintendence  or  manage- 
ment of  the  theatre? 

A.  Myself  and  my  brother,  John  R.  Ford. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  very  well. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  him  on  Friday,  the  day  of  the  murder  of  the 
President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.   Do  you  recollect  what  time  of  the  day  you  saw  liim  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  about  half-past  eleven  o'clock,  in  front  of  the  theatre.  He 
came  down  Tenth  street  from  towards  F  street,  towards  the  theatre. 

Q.  Did  he  do  anything  after  he  came  there  ?     If  so,  what  ? 

A.  I  told  him  there  was  a  letter  in  the  office  for  him.  I  believe  he  went  in 
and  brought  the  letter  out,  sat  down  on  the  steps,  and  commenced  reading  it. 

Q,  Did  you  learn  before,  or  at  that  time,  or  about  that  time,  that  the  Presi- 
dent was  coming  that  night  ? 

A.  ]My  brother  told  me  he  was  to  be  there  that  night  a  little  before  I  saw  him, 
about  eleven  o'clock. 

Q.  Do  you  remember,  after  Booth  was  there,  that  anything  was  said  on  that 
subject  in  his  presence? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  one  telling  him.  I  suppose  he  heard  it  while 
he  was  there. 

Q.  State  what  orders  were  given  by  yourself,  or  any  one  else,  for  preparing 
the  box  for  the  President. 

[Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  as  immaterial.  Objection  overruled.] 

A.  Orders  were  given  about  two  o'clock  to  prepare  the  box. 
36 


554  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Who  was  present,  charged  with  the  execution  of  that  order  ? 
A.  Thomas  J.  Raybold. 
Q.  What  is  his  position  at  the  theatre  ? 

A.  He  was  doorkeeper,  and  attended   to  the  upholstering  about  the  theatre, 
the  most  of  it. 

Q.  Who  gave  the  order  to  prepare  the  box  ? 

A.  I  gave  the  order. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Raybold  execute  the  order  ?  and  if  not,  who  did  ? 

A.  He  was  sick. 

(This  evidence  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pibrrepo.\t  as  incompetent.] 

Mr.  Braulky  said  he  only  desired  to  show  who  prepared  the  box. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Raybold  prepare  it? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not, 

Q.  Who  did  it  ? 

A.  I  did  it. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  go  to  work  preparing  that  box  ? 

A.  Some  time  between  two  and  three  o'clock. 

Q.  Were  you  up  in  the  box  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  whether  the  curtain  of  the  theatre  was  up  or  down  at 
that  time. 

A.  It  was  up. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  it  had  been  up  all  day  or  not  ? 

A.  All  day,  sir. 

Q.  While  you  were  at  work  preparing  the  box  for  the  reception  of  the  Presi- 
dent, was  any  stranger  there  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  an}'. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  any  one  who  was  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  knew  Edward  Spangler  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  he  was  at  that  time  ? 

A.  He  was  on  the  stage,  fixing  the  scenery. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anj'thing  about  a  chair  being  brought  in  for  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  ordered  a  colored  man  to  bring  a  chair  down  from  my  room. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  box  at  that  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  any  stranger  at  that  time  ? 

A.  There  was  one  gentleman  there — I   do  not  know  his  name— from  the 
Treasury  Department,  helping  me  to  fix  up  the  box.     He  brought  a  flag  there. 

Q.  Any  one  else  1 

A.  No  one  else. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  condition  of  the  keepers  of  the  locks 
of  boxes  Nus.  7  and  8  ? 

(The  Court  inquired  what  was  meant  by  the  word  "  keepers." 

Mr.  Bradley  replied,  "  Hasps.") 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  were  fast  or  loose  to  either  of  these  boxes? 

A.  No,  sii*. 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  the  night  of  the  performance — Friday  night  ? 

A.  In  the  box  office. 

Q.  Where  were  you  during  the  third  act  ? 

A.  Still  there. 

Q.  Were  you  out  in  front  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  may  have  been  ;  I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  555 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  rehearsal  that  day,  as  to  what  time  it 
occurred  ? 

A.  There  was  a  rehearsal. 

Q.  Was  it  before  or  after  the  box  was  fitted  up  ? 

A.  The  rehearsal  was  before  the  box  wasfittid  up;  not  afterwards. 

Q.  Tlie  box,  you  say,  was  fitted  up  between  two  and  three  o'clock.  Do  you 
recollect  at  what. time  the  rehearsal  commenced? 

A.  1  ;un  not  positive.     The  rehearsal  was  generally  called  at  eleven  o'clock 

Q.  You  do  not  knoAV  of  any  diff'erence  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sii'. 

Q.  I  ask  you  if  it  was  possible  for  any  man,  entering  at  that  time  the  door 
marked  D  on  this  plat,  to  see  the  staire  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   not  unless  one  of  the  other  doors  was  open. 

Q.  If  only  the  end  door  was  open  could  you  see  the  stage  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   unless  you  came  round  and  looked  into  the  box. 

Q.  "VVho  assisted  you  in  fitting  up  that  box,  besides  the  gentleman  from  the 
Treasury  ? 

A.  Mr.  Buckingham,  doorkeeper  there, 

Q.  Was  there  any  means  of  getting  out  of  these  two  boxes  into  the  body  of 
the  theatre  except  by  jumping  over  the  front  of  the  box  and  through  this  door 
marked  D  l 

A.  No,  sir  ;  no  other  means. 

Q.  Was  there  any  door  at  all  in  the  back  wall  of  that  box  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  How  many  doors  were  there  in  entering  into  this  box  where  the  President 
was  ? 

A.  Three  entrances. 

Q.  Three  doors  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  went  there  the  doors  were  all  there,  were  they  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  could  go  into  any  one  and  out  at  another  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  would  have  to  go  into  the  first  door,  marked  D,  before  you  could 
get  to  the  others,  and  when  you  got  through  this  door  you  could  get  into  the 
others,  or  into  one  and  out  at  another  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  could  likewise  go  where  Booth  went,  over  ou  to  the  stage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  where  you  took  breakfast  that  day  ] 
.  A.  At  the  National  Hotel. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  next,  after  breakfast  ? 

A.  I  walked  right  up  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 

A.  About  11  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Right  into  the  box  office. 

il-  Did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  1 

A.  All  the  afternoon — not  in  the  box  office  all  the  time,  but  in  the  theatre. 

Q.  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  box-oilice.  How  long  did  you  stay  iu  the 
ticket  office  ? 

A.  About  an  hour. 


556  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  That  would  bring  you  to  about  12  o'clock.  After  12  o'clock  where  did 
you  go  1 

A.  I  went  back  to  the  stage. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  on  the  stage? 

A.  I  suppose  about  half  an  hour,  or  an  hour. 

Q.  Which  do  you  think  ? 

A.  I  cannot  very  positively  say. 

Q.  That  brought  you  up  to  one  o'clock ;  what  did  you  do  then  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  box-office  again. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  in  the  box-office  ? 

A.  I  suppose  an  hour. 

Q.  That  brought  yoir  to  two  o'clock ;  and  what  went  on  up  in  the  theatre 
while  you  were  in  the  box-office  you  do  not  know  1 

A.  They  were  taking  the  partition  out  of  this  box. 

Q.  My  question  is  whether  you  know  while  you  were  absent  in  the  box- 
offiec  what  went  on  in  the  theatre  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Did  you  say  the  partition  was  taken  out  while  you  were  in  the  box-office  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  this  partition  being  taken  out,  except 
that  it  was  out  when  yon  got  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  up  there  after  two  o'clock,  was  that  the  first  time  you 
were  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know,  then,  that  nobody  had  been  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  wall  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  examine  the  door  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  shavings  or  plastering  on  the  carpet  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  look  for  any  such  things  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  about  these  preparations  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  When  did  yon  first  learn  the  President  was  to  come  there  ? 

A.  About  11  o'clock  in  the  morning. 

Q.  Who  told  you  ? 

A.  ]\Iy  brother. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  you  heard  of  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  got  to  the  box  until  two  o'clock  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  there  you  found  the  partition  taken  out  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  difficulty  in  seeing  the  stage  when  you  got  into  this  box,  B  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  say  the  curtain  was  up  all  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  how  you  know,  when  you  Avere  in  the  box,  that  it  was  up  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  its  being  hoisted. 

Q.  But  you  say  you  were  in  the  box — might  it  not  have  been  hoisted  twenty 
times  and  you  not  know  it  ? 

A.  It  might  have  been. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  557 

Q.  Might  it  not  have  been  let  down  twenty  times  and  you  not  know  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradlev  : 

Q.  You  say  you  were  on  the  stage  an  hour  or  more? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q^.  And  you  were  in  that  box  preparing  the  box.  During  that  time  that 
curtain  was  up  1 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  was. 

Q.  Does  hoisting  that  curtain  usually  make  considerable  noise  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  it  went  up  easy  or  whether  it  made  a  noise. 

Q.  It  was  up  at  any  rate  when  you  were  there.  Who  took  down  the  parti- 
tion ? 

A.  Spangler. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  assisted  him  ? 

A.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Jacob  llitterspaw. 

Q.  About  the  doors.  After  you  got  into  the  building,  the  entrance  doors  into 
the  theatre,  were  they  open  or  locked  ? 

A.  The  door  is  generally  locked.  It  may  have  been  open  to  pass  through  to 
fix  the  box.     It  was  usually  locked,  and  I  kept  the  key  in  the  office. 

Jamks  J.  GiFFORD  recalled  as  a  witness  for  the  defence,  and  examined  by  Mr. 
Bradley  : 

Q,.  I  think  you  stated  in  your  former  examination  that  your  place  on  the 
stage  Avas  stage  carpenter.  Do  you  remember  being  at  the  theatre  during  the 
night  of  the  assassination  of  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  box  he  occupied  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  built  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  you  made  these  diagrams,  [diagrams  of  the  theatre  heretofore  placed 
in  evidence,]  or  had  them  made. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

(Mr.  PiFRRRPONT  said  as  the  diagrams  were  in  evidence  and  not  questioned 
by  the  prosecution,  he  hardly  saw  the  necessity  of  introducing  evidence  to  prove 
their  correctness.) 

Q.  State  if  they  are  an  accurate  representation  of  Avhat  they  purport  to  rep- 
resent. 

A.  They  are  correct,  according  to  the  memorandums  I  had  of  it. 

Q.  State  whether  there  is  any  outlet  to  boxes  7  and  8  into  the  body  of  the 
theatre,  except  in  front  and  to  the  stage,  except  through  the  door  marked  E. 

A.  There  is  no  other  exit  or  entrance  at  all. 

Q.  Were  you  engaged  about  the  theatre  that  day  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  assist  in  the  preparations  for  the  reception  of  the  President  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  assist  in  the  preparation  of  the  box.  I  was  attend- 
ing to  my  duties  on  the  stage. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  the  curtain  was  down  or  up  during  that  day. 

A.  The  curtain  was  generally  lowered  about  half  past  five  or  six  o'clock — 
after  the  work  on  the  stage  was  done. 

Q.  IIow  before  that  time  1 

A.  It  was  not  down  before  that  time. 

Q.  How  much  light  is  there  into  these  boxes  when  the  theatre  is  closed  in 
the  day  time  ? 

A.  Very  little,  if  any,  unless  the  doors  at  the  entrances  of  the  boxes  are  open. 


558  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Yon  cannot  see  into  the  passage  at  all.  It  is  perfectly  dark  in  the  passage  lead- 
ing to  the  boxes. 

Q.  State  where  the  hole  was  in  the  wall. 

A.  It  was  hack  of  the  door  in  the  passage. 

Q.  State  Avhether  it  was  qnite  dark  there  unless  the  doors  were  open. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examination  there  on  the  morning  after  the  assassina- 
tion ?  and  if  so  state  whether  you  found  any  marks  of  the  plastering  which  had 
fallen  from  that  wall. 

A.  I  did  not  know  there  was  any  hole  cut  in  the  wall  until  two  or  three  days 
afterwards.     I  did  not  know  until  Sunday. 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  examinition  then  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  find  anything  either  on  the  floor  or  carpet? 

A.  Nothing  at  all.  I  found  the  hole  on  Saturday  in  the  door,  and  I  thought 
the  President  was  shot  through  it. 

Q.  That  was  merely  the  gimlet-hole  which  you  described  when  you  were  on 
the  stand  before  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  assassination,  and  during  the  performance,  state  if  you 
were  out  on  the  front  pavement,  in  front  of  the  theatre,  at  any  time. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  out  both  during  the  first  and  second  acts. 

Q.  Were  you  out  there  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  act  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  1 

A.  Lewis  Garland. 

Q.  Who  is  Lewis  Garland  ? 

A.  He  is  a  costumer  and  actor,  engaged  on  the  stage. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  about  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  remain  there  ? 

A.  At  the  beginning  of  the  third  act,  about  twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  from  the  stage  to  the  front  1 

A.  I  went  through  the  stage  entrance  on  the  side  next  E  street. 

Q.  The  stage  entrance  is  on  the  south  side  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sii*. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  then  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  see  him  that  night  at  all. 

Q.  When  you  came  out  on  the  front,  while  there  with  Garland,  state  where 
your  position  was,  as  well  as  you  recollect. 

A.  It  was  between  the  stage  entrance  and  between  the  second  door  in  the 
building,  which  was  used  by  the  audience  coming  in  and  out  to  buy  tickets. 
[Position  explained  to  the  jury  by  diagram,  witness  remarking "  there  was  an 
opening  of  six  feet  (one  or  two)  not  put  down.] 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  The  diagram  is  right,  then,  with  the  exception  of  that  1 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  the  inside  door. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  And  that  is  the  door  Mr.  Ford  described  as  being  a  temporary  one  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mr.  J.  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  knew  him  from  his  boyhood. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  before  you  saw  him  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  never  saw  him. 


TRIAL    OF    JOPIN    H.    SURRATT.  559 

Q.  That  nigbt  wheu  you  aud  Mr.  Garland  were  out  in  front  of  the  tlieatre,  did 
you  see  him,  or  anybody  resembling  him,  come  down  in  front  of  that  place  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q    Did  you  see  any  one  come  there  and  ask  what  time  it  was  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  who  it  was. 

A.  The  gentleman's  name  was  Hess. 

Q.  Was  he  connected  with  the  theatre  1 

A.  He  was  connected  with  the  theatre. 

Q.  Was  he  on  that  night,  or  not  ? 

A.  He  had  not  been  in  the  first  piece.  He  was  to  go  on  in  the  second  and 
sing  a  national  song. 

Q.  What  direction  did  be  come  from  when  he  came  down  the  street  1 

A.  From  towards  F  street. 

Q.  What  occurred  ? 

A.  He  came  and  asked  what  time  it  was.  Mr.  Garland  stepped  in  the  door, 
came  out  and  said  it  was  ten  minutes  past  ten. 

Q.  Was  Booth  anywhere  about  then  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  saw  ;  I  did  not  see  him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  sitting  on  the  carriage  platform  in  front  of  the  the- 
atre that  night? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  may  state  whether  persons  were  allowed  by  the  rules  of  the  theatre 
to  sit  there ;  and  if  so,  As^hat  would  have  been  your  duty  in  that  respect. 

A.  We  allowed  no  persons  to  sit  there  at  all,  nor  to  loaf  about  the  front  of 
the  theatre.  It  would  have  been  my  duty  to  see  that  they  were  put  away  if 
they  had  been  there. 

Q.  Were  there  policemen  there  for  that  purpose  ? 

A.  One  policeman  from  the  city  police  was  detailed  there  in  front  of  the  the- 
atre. 

Q.  What  became  of  Hess  after  he  asked  what  time  it  was  ? 

A.  He  stood  there  awhile  and  then  went  in  at  the  stage  entrance,  leaving 
Mr.  Garland  and  I  standing  there. 

Q.  Did  anything  further  occur  before  you  learned  of  the  death  of  the  Presi- 
dent ? 

A.  Nothing  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Can  you  state  with  distinctness  whether  there  were  two  other  persons 
standing  in  the  same  place  where  you  two  were  for  some  time,  before  you  heard 
this  calling  of  the  time  ? 

A.  There  may  have  been  ;  I  did  not  take  notice. 

Q.  If  Booth  had  been  close  there  you  would  have  seen  him? 

A.  If  Booth  had  been  there  I  should  have  seen  him.  A  stranger  I  mi";ht  not 
have  taken  any  notice  of. 

Q.  What  signal  was  given  on  the  stage  at  the  theatre  for  shifting  the  scenes  ? 

A.  A  whistle. 

(A  whistle  was  produced  and  blown  by  Mr.  Bradley.) 

Q.  Anything  like  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  that  is  not  a  very  good  one.  That  was  the  signal  for  a  change  of 
scenes.     Some  theatres  use  gongs, 

(Another  whistle  was  produced  and  blown  by  Mr.  Merrick.) 

Q.  Was  it  like  that  ? 

A.  Sometimes  he  would  blow  as  loud  as  that. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  .\s  you  were  the  architect  of  the  theatre,  I  will  ask  you  to  explain  the 
position  of  that  platform  in  front  of  the  theatre. 


560  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  It  was  placed  on  the  curbston'e  at  one  end.  The  other  end  reached  out 
into  the  street.  It  was  twenty  or  twenty-four  feet  long,  and  placed  exactly  in 
the  centre  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Take  this  diagram  and  show  to  the  jury  the  relative  position  of  the 
extreme  southern  side  of  the  platform  and  the  entrance  door,  on  the  inside  of 
which  was  the  clock  1 

A.  The  clock  hung  over  this  door,  (illustrating  the  dingram.)  Here  is  the 
extreme  southern  end  of  the  platform.    It  did  not  reach  quite  as  far  as  the  door. 

Q.  The  entrance  door,  then,  is  between  the  end  of  the  platform  and  Penn- 
sylvania avenue  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  it  did  not  reach  quite  to  the  door. 
By  a  Juror : 

Q.  How  wide  is  the  space  between  the  outer  wall  of  the  theatre  and  the  wall 
on  which  the  clock  was  ? 

A.  The  width  of  the  vestibule,  which  was  about  seven  feet ;  and  the  wall 
was  three  feet  thick.  The  pavement  between  the  platform  and  the  wall  was 
about  sixteen  feet. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Give  the  general  dimensions,  all  round,  of  that  vestibule  ? 

A.  I  suppose  the  length  of  the  vestibule  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  thirty  or 
thirty-two  feet. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  going  in  from  the  street  ? 

A  O,  no,  sir ;  I  refer  to  the  length.  It  was  about  seven  feet  wide  as  you 
entered — in  the  centre,  I  suppose,  about  ten. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  was  your  business  on  the  14th  of  April,  1S65? 

A.  My  business  was  carpenter  at  the  theatre. 

Q.  Were  you  a  laboring  man  1 

A.  I  was  a  laboring  man,  and  am  still. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  have  dinner  ? 

A.  A  little  after  two. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  it  ? 

A".  Around  on  F  street. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  occvirred  while  you  Avere  gone? 

A.  No ;  I  do  not  know  what  occurred  while  I  was  gone. 

Q.  Are  you  a  married  man  'i 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  air. 

Q.  Where  was  your  house  ? 

A.  In  Baltimore. 

Q.  You  did  not  live  here  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Baltimore  every  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  night  before  the  murder  where  did  you  stay  ? 

A.  In  the  theatre ;  I  had  a  room  in  the  back  part  of  the  theatre  with  the 
watchman. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  begin  work  on  the  morning  of  the  14th  ? 

A.  I  did  not  work  much  ;  I  was  about  the  theatre  when  I  got  up,  I  sup- 
pose at  five,  or  half-past  five. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT.  561 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  at  the  theatre  ? 

A.  I  staid  until  the  men  came  to  work,  and  then  I  went  to  breakfast. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  that  ? 

A.  Between  eight  and  nine  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  your  breakfast  ? 

A.  On  F  street.     Sometimes  I  would  get  it  at  other  places. 

Q.  Where  did  you  that  day  ? 

A.  I  judge  I  got  it  over  on  F  street. 

Q.  When  did  you  breakfast  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell ;   I  did  not  look  at  the  time. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  breakfast  1 

A.  To  the  theatre. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  Until  after  rehearsal  was  over. 

Q.  When  was  that  1 

A.  About  two  o'clock. 

Q    Where  did  you  then  go  ? 

A.  To  get  my  dinner. 

Q.  HoAv  long  were  you  gone  ? 

A.  An  hour  or  an  hour  and  a  half. 

Q.  And  you  do  not  undertake  to  tell  what  took  place  while  you  were  there? 

A.  I  only  tell  what  I  saw  myself. 

Q.  In  that  room  where  the  boxes  were,  with  these  doors  open  and  this  parti- 
tion taken  away,  it  was  so  dark  you  could  not  see  anything  ? 

A.  Not  with  the  doors  shut. 

Q.  Suppose  they  were  open  1 

A.  Then  there  would  be  a  dim  light  from  the  front  of  the  box. 

Q.  When  the  doors  were  open  then  there  would  be  some  light  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  from  the  front  of  the  box. 

Q.  When  they  came  to  take  away  that  partition,  they  did  not  have  any  lights, 
did  they  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  not ;  I  did  not  see  them  take  it  away. 

Q.   It  was  iu  the  daytime  when  they  took  it  away  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  between  two  and  three  o'clock. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  about  any  ligjits  being  called  for  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  if  I  had  gone  up  into  that  box  to  fix  a  lock  I  should  have  taken 
a  light  with  me. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  go  for  that  purpose  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  when  you  stood  in  that  box  and  looked  towards  the  stage,  could  you 
have  seen  anything  1 

A.  Yes ;  I  could  have  seen  the  stage. 

Q.  Could  you  have  seen  in  the  box  ? 

A.  No,  .sir ;  if  I  looked  at  the  stage  I  was  looking  out  into  the  light ;  l)Ut  to 
look  at  the  box  1  was  looking  into  the  dark  place  from  the  light.  I  could  not 
have  seen  any  person  in  the  back  part  of  the  box  from  the  stage. 

Q.  That  is,  if  the  person  was  in  the  box  and  you  on  the  stage  ? 

A.  Then  I  could  not  see  him. 

Q.  If  the  person  was  in  the  box  and  you  were  in  the  box  could  you  see 
him  then  ? 

A.  I  might  have  seen  him. 

Q.  When  you  went  out  that  night  you  did  not  see  J.  Wilkes  Booth  in  front  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  go  into  a  drinking-house  to  take  a  drink  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  come  out  ? 


562  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  uot  see  liira  come  up  the  steps? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  go  into  the  President's  hox  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  shoot  the  President  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  because  you  did  not  see  him,  you  do  not  want  us  to  infer  these  things 
did  not  take  place  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Booth  there  at  all  that  night? 

A.  Not  that  night ;  I  saw  him  that  day. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  see  him  in  the  theatre,  or  in  front  of  the  theatre,  or  in 
the  drinking  house,  or  at  all  that  night? 

A.  Not  that  night ;  no,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  some  people  in  front  1 

A.  0,  yes. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  see  ? 

A.  I  saw  a  number  of  people. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  see  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  just  the  particular  persons. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  out  in  front  ? 

A.  Twenty  or  twenty-five  minutes. 

Q.  What  did  you  go  there  for  ? 

A.  I  went  out  in  front  to  look  about. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  to  order  any  people  off  the  platform,  or  anything  of  that 
sort? 

A.  If  I  had  seen  them  there  I  should  have  ordered  them  off. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  go  for  that  purpose  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  on  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  President's  carriage  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  How  did  you  know  it  was  his  ? 

A.  They  told  me. 

Q^.  Did  you  see  anybody  looking  into  it  ? 

A.  I  saw  a  man  in  livery  sitting  on  the  box. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  man  look  into  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  man  then  go  up  towards  H  street  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  a  man  come  down  from  towards  H  street  ? 

A.  I  saw  one  come  down  from  F  street. 

Q.  Whom  did  you  see  ? 

A.  I  saw  Mr.  Hess  come  there,  and  I  saw  George  Harry. 

Q.  Who  was  he  ? 

A.  An  actor. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  ? 

A.  He  was  standing  there. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  to  Booth  ? 

A.  I  did  not  hear  him. 

Q.  He  could  not  have  said  anything  to  Booth  in  your  presence  1 

A.  Not  without  my  hearing. 

Q.  You  are  sure  he  did  not  speak  to  Booth  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  563 

Q.  He  could  not  have  done  so  without  your  seeing  him  ? 

A.   I  think  not, 

Q.  Then  he  did  not  do  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whttlior  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  You  did  not  know  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  saw  him  afterwards  on  the  triaL 

Q.  Did  you  know  Payne  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  any  of  the  conspirators  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Either  in  the  theatre  or  out  of  it  ? 

A    No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Harry  come  down  the  street  with  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  speak  to  youl 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect ;  some  few  words  ;  I  do  not  know  what  they  were. 

Q.  What  were  they  about  ? 

A.  It  was  about  the  time  for  going  on ;  I  think  he  asked  me  if  it  was  time  to 
be  dressing,  or  something  of  that  sort. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him  ] 

A.  I  did  not  tell  him  anytliing. 

Q.  What  did  he  say  about  dressing? 

A.  I  believe  he  asked  if  it  was  time  to  dress  himself,  or  something  of  that 
sort. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  make  any  answer? 

A.  I  did  not  make  any  answer ;  it  was  none  of  my  business. 

Q.  What  had  you  to  do  with  his  dressing  1 

A.  Nothing. 

Q.  Where  did  he  go  ? 

A.  He  went  into  the  theatre. 

Q.  Did  he  dress  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  change  the  scenery  to  the  theatre  do  you  have  a  signal  up  in 
H  street  and  another  in  the  back  alley  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

!^Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  this  as  not  proper  cross-examination.  Tliere  had 
been  no  evidence  about  any  whistle  on  F  street.  Mr.  Pierrepont  said  there  was 
the  evidence  of  Pettit  that  a  whistle  was  heard  in  that  direction.) 

Q,  They  did  not  give  any  signal  for  moving  the  scenery  outside  of  the  thea- 
tre, did  they  1 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  You  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Harry  again  ? 

A.  After  the  assassination  I  saw  him. 

Q.  Tliat  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  exactly;  there  was  a  great  deal  of  confusion  at  the  time. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  that  night  after  the  assassination  ? 


5G4  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  staid  about  the  theatre. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  first  1 

A.  I  rushed  ia  on  to  the  stage. 

Q.  Where  next  did  you  go  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  went  into  the  alley. 

Q.  Did  you  find  anything  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  go  to  examine  the  box  that  night  ?  You  did  not  go  till  some 
days  afterwards  1 

A.  I  went  on  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  Did  you  say  when  this  partition  was  taken  away  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  said  it  had  been  taken  away. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  what  was  the  condition  of  the  curtain  when  you  were 
not  there  ? 

A.  I  am  not  certain 

Question  repeated. 

A.  How  can  I  tell  what  was  done  when  I  was  not  there  to  see  ? 

Q.  You  do  not  know,  do  you  ? 

A.  No ;   I  know  the  condition  when  I  was  there  present. 

Q.  HoAV  many  curtains  were  there  to  that  stage  ? 

A.  There  is  one  drop  curtain. 

Q.  Was  there  not  another  curtain  ? 

A.  We  had  two,  but  we  did  not  use  but  one. 

Q.  Was  one  a  painted  curtain  ? 

A.  They  were  both  painted. 

Q.  Did  they  have  pictures  on  them  ? 

A.  One  of  them  had  a  bust  of  Shakspeare  and  a  landscape. 

Q.  That  was  the  one  that  was  used  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Hess  is  1 

A.  He  is  here. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  Garland  is  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  1  do  not. 

Q.  Did  Garland  talk  to  you  any  that  night  1 

A.  I  placed  him  at  the  back  door  after  the  murder,  and  told  him  not  to  let 
anybody  go  out.  We  staid  there  in  front  until  the  assassination,  and  then  both 
wen!  in  together. 

Q.  Then  you  were  standing  out  there  when  the  assassination  occurred? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  Booth  go  in  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  You  were  asked  when  you  were  away  from  the  theatre ;  were  you  there 
at  twelve  o'clock  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  if  the  curtain  had  been  down  at  twelve  o'clock  you  would  have 
known  it  1 

A.  It  could  not  have  been  down  at  twelve ;  the  rehearsal  lasted  until  nearly 
two.     The  rehearsal  lasted  nearly  all  the  time  from  eleven  until  two. 

Q.  As  to  the  light  in  this  box,  where  would  it  have  come  from  in  the  day- 
time ? 

A.  It  would  have  come  from  the  front  of  the  box. 

Q.  And  where  would  the  daylight  have  been  admitted  there  ? 

A.  (Witness  refei'red  to  a  point  on  the  diagram.)  It  would  have  been  ad- 
mitted from  these  openings. 


TEIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  565 

Q.  Then  all  the  light  that  could  have  been  admitted  was  that  passiug  through 
the  main  body  of  the  theatre  from  these  openings  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrkpont  : 

Q.  You  liave  just  stated  there  was  a  rehearsal  from  eleven  till  two ;  where 
were  you  at  that  time  ? 

A.  On  the  stage. 

Q.  On  the  stage  all  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  my  business  to  be  there. 

Q.  You  were  there  all  the  time  from  eleven  luitil  two  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  in  the  theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  stage  ? 

A.  I  might  have  left  the  stage  between  eleven  and  two. 

Q.  Then  why  did  you  say  the  curtain  could  not  have  been  down? 

A.  Because  the  room  was  wanted  for  the  rehearsal.  They  always  want  the 
first  entrance,  and  the  curtain  rises  back  of  the  first  entrance. 

Q.  When  they  are  playing  in  the  theatre  the  curtain  does  drop,  does  it  not  ? 

A.  Y^es,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  And  when  the  curtain  drops  the  actors  retire  behind  it,  do  they  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Except  when  they  sometimes  come  in  front  to  make  their  bows  1 

A.  Yes,  t-ir. 

The  court  here  ttiok  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

C.  B.  Hess  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  At  JS^.  520  North  Fifth  street,  Thiladelpliia. 

Q.  State  whether,  in  the  month  of  April,  1865,  you  were  or  not  in  any  way 
connected  with  the  theatre  company  performing  at  Ford's  theatre,  in  this  city. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  As  an  actor,  or  how  ? 

A.  Actor. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  night  of  the  assassination  of  the  President  ?  ■ 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  State  whether  you  had  any  part  in  the  performance  that  night,  and  at 
what  time  you  were  to  appear. 

A.  I  was  not  in  the  American  Cousin,  but  was  in  a  song  that  was  to  be  sufig 
after  the  performance  of  the  American  Cousin. 

Q.  A  national  song? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  written  expressly  for  the  President. 

Q.  And  who  was  to  sing  with  vou  ? 

A.  There  was  a  Miss  Gurley,  Mr.  Phillips— T  think  it  is  II.  B.  Phillip.s— and 
myself,  with  a  general  chorus  on  the  part  of  the  company. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  front  of  the  theatre  in  the  course  of  that  evening  ? 

A.  I  was  in  and  out  of  the  theatre  several  times  during  the  evening. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of,  at  any  time,  talking  with  Mr.  Gifford  or  any  one  else 
out  in  front  of  the  theatre] 

A.  While  I  was  talking  Avith  Mr.  Gifford  and  Mr.  Garland,  there  was  a  gen- 
tleman standing  on  the  curbstone,  dressed,  it  seemed  to  me,  like  an  ofiicer.  I 
thought  he  was  an  officer.     He  had  a  military  coat  on,  or  something  like  it. 


566  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  about  where  you  were  standing:  talking,  with  !Mr.  Gifford 
and  Mr.  Garland  ? 

A.  At  the  entrance  leading  to  the  stage,  called  by  actors  the  back  door. 

Q.  Wei'e  they  there  before  you  or  uot  1 

A.  Mr.  Garland  and  Mr.  GilFord  were  there  before  I  was. 

Q.  From  what  direction  did  you  come  towards  them  ? 

A.  As  I  came  out  of  the  theatre  I  met  them  at  the  door. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  them? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Which  direction  did  you  take  then  1 

A    I  went  right  back  into  the  theatre  again. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  afterwards  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  When  you  came  out  and  spoke  to  them,  was  anything  said  about  the  time? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  asked  them  what  time  it  was.  Mr.  Garland  walked  as  far  as 
the  first  door  in  front  of  the  theatre,  leading  into  the  audience  department, 
looked  at  the  clock,  and  came  back  and  told  me  it  was  ten  minutes  past  ten. 
Says  I,  "Ten  minutes  past  ten;  I  M'ill  be  wanted  in  a  few  minutes,"  and  then 
left  them  immediately  and  went  back  into  the  theatre  again.  I  do  not  tliink  I 
had  been  there  more  than  two  minutes  when  I  heard  the  discharge  of  a  pistol. 
What  afterwards  happened  I  do  not  know,  because  there  was  an  uproar  all 
over  the  house  at  that  time. 

Q,.  At  any  time  in  the  course  of  the  evening,  and  shortly  before  this,  had  you 
come  from  the  direction  of  F  street  down  to  where  they  were  standing  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  walked  up  as  far  as  F  street,  to  Mr.  Ferguson's,  1  think  it 
was,  and  got  a  cigar.     I  then  walked  back  again  to  the  door. 

Q.  Was  that  announcement  of  the  time  in  an  audible  tone  of  voice,  or  was 
it  said  in  a  private  way  ? 

A.  I  asked  it  in  a  kind  of  very  loud  tone  my.self,  knowing  that  I  had,  at 
least  I  supposed  I  had,  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour  in  which  to  dress  up — 
to  put  on  a  black  dress  suit — to  appear  before  the  President  in. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  you  were  dressed  that  evening  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  how. 

A.  I  had  a  light  spring  overcoat  on,  and  kind  of  darkish  pants. 

Q.  What  is  called  a  raglan  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  think  you  looked  any  like  Surratt  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  asked  what  the  time  was,  and  they  told  you,  you  pronounced  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  tone  of  voice  was  the  loudest — the  way  you  asked  it  or  the  way 
you  reiterated  it  after  they  told  you? 

A.  The  way  I  asked  it. 

Q.  Then  you  announced  it  in  a  lower  tone,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  s:r. 

Q.  Won't  you  give  the  jury  a  specimen  of  how  it  was  done? 

A.  (Speaking  in  an  ordinary  conversational  tone  of  voice.)  Says  I,  "  IMr. 
Garland,  what  time  is  it?"  He  walks  up  in  the  direction  of  the  clock,  and  then 
says,  "Ten  minutes  past  ten."  Says  I,  "Ten  minutes  past  ten;  I  am  wanted  in 
a  few  minutes." 

Q.  That  is  exactly  what  you  said  ? 

A.  Yes,  .sir. 

Q.  And  you  stated  it  in  that  tone  of  voice? 


i 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURKATT.  567 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tuiii  pale  at  all  ? 

A.  ?so,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  tliiuk  there  was  anything  ti)  cause  you  to  be  agitated  in  that, 
did  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  nothing  at  all. 

Q.  You  were  not  agitated  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  a  hat  did  you  wear  on  that  occasion? 

A.  Kind  of  a  dark  hat — not  a  very  high  one. 

Q.  A  low  hat  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  shape  1 

A.  Round  at  the  top. 

Q.  How  about  the  brim  ? 

A.  Stiff  brim. 

Q.  Like  this  one  ?  (handing  witness  a  black  felt  hat,  round  top,  and  stiff  brim.) 

A.  Of  the  same  style;  but  it  had  no  wire  round  the  brim. 

Q.  So  far  as  its  general  appearance  wa«  concerned  it  was  the  same  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  then  wear  a  moustache? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  same  as  now  ? 

A.  About  the  same. 

Q.  As  heavy  as  it  is  now  ? 

A.  Very  near. 

Q.  And  as  black  as  it  is  now  ? 

A.  About  the  same. 

Q.  And  your  hair  was  the  same  ? 

A.  My  hair  was  longer. 

Q.  Was  your  hair  as  black  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  always  has  been. 

Q.  Was  your  fulness  of  face  about  the  same  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  no  paler  then  than  now? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  no  more  agitated  than  now  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  was. 

Q.  Wiien  you  said  what  you  have  stated  to  the  jury,  you  said  it  just  as  you 
Lave  given  it  here? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  that  same  tone  of  voice? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  down  to  the  steps  and  range  yourself  in  a  line  with  anybody  1 

A.  No,  t<ir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  and  look  in  the  President's  carriage  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  Booth  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  see  him  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  in  front  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  go  into  the  drinking  saloon  near  the  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  ;iir. 

Q.  Nor  when  he  came  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  when  be  drank  ? 


568  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  liim  when  he  went  rouud  to  the  President's  box  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  cannot  telL     I  was  in  and  out  several  times. 

Q.  After  you  pronounced  the  time,  you  did  not  hasten  off  towards  H  street 
A.  No,  sir.     I  went  right  into  the  theatre. 

Q.  Had  you  called  the  time  before,  that  night? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  only  time  ? 
A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  It  was  done  without  any  excitement,  or  paleness,  or  agitation? 

A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  looked  then,  as  you  look  now,  just  about  the  same  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  was  laughing;   I  am  nearly  always  in  a  laughing  humor. 

Q.  How  do  you  happen  to  remember  that  it  was  just  ten  o'clock  and  ten  min- 
utes, at  this  distance  of  time  —  over  two  years? 

A.  It  was  such  anight  that  no  person  could  help  recollecting  such  things. 

Q.  How  do  you  remember  that  you  said  ten  o'clock  and  ten  minutes  ? 

A.  Because  Mr.  Garland  mentioned  it — hallooed  it  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  tell  anybody  about  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  mentioned  it  to  Mr.  Ford. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  Philadelphia. 

Q.  When? 

A.  Last  year. 

Q.  It  was  last  year  wlien  you  mentioned  that  fact  to  him  I 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  also  to  Mr.  Garland. 

Q.  Mr.  Garland  is  here,  is  he  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  mention  it  to  anybody  else? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  Did  you  think  there  was  anything  extraordinary  in  its  being  ten  minutes 
past  ten  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not  until  they  spoke  about  it. 

Q.  Then  you  had  to  hurry,  did  you  ? 

J^.  Yes,  sir ;  I  had  nothing  else  to  do,  and  I  thought  that  I  had  better  linger 
inside  than  outside. 

Q.  The  play  was  not  then  near  over  when  the  President  was  killed  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  think  the  second  scene  Avas  on. 

Q,  There  was  no  occasion  then  for  you  to  be  in  a  great  hurry  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  no  great  hurry. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  hurry  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  walked  on  leisurely. 

Q.  And  you  were  not  startled  by  the  announcement  of  the  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  anybody  in  front  of  the  theatre  that  you  knew  but  those 
you  have  mentioned  ? 

A.  I  saw  no  person  but  the  gentleman  standing  by  the  curbstone,  and  the 
President's  carnage  and  the  driver  of  it. 

Q.  Nobody  else  that  you  knew  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  except  'Mr.  Garland.     There  were  gentlemen  passing  on  the  other 
side. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Do  you  say  all  you  knev/  or  all  you  saw  ?     I  understand  you 
to  say  all  you  saw.     Mr.  Pierrepont's  question  was  as  to  who  you  knew. 

A.  Mr.  Garland  was  all  I  knew. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  569 

Q.  "Would  you  know  this  other  man  if  you  were  to  see  him  again  ? 

A.  I  do  not  tliink  I  would  ;  I  was  a  stranger  in  AVashingtou,  not  having  been 
there  more  than  two  months. 

Q.  Which  way  did  you  go  into  the  theatre  after  you  made  this  statement  ? 

A.  I  went  right  in  through  the  entrance  leading  on  to  the  stage. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sm-e  you  did  not  go  back  and  speak  in  a  low  tone  to  anybody  1 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  you  did  not  range  yourself  in  a  line  with  others  in 
front  of  the  theatre — on  a  line  with  the  President's  carriage? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  As  soon  as  you  uttered  what  you  have  repeated  you  walked  right  into 
the  back  door  1 

A.  Ye?,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  then  ? 

A.  I  went  on  to  the  stage,  and  the  minute  1  got  there  I  heard  the  report  of 
a  pistol. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  come  through  on  the  stage  ? 

A.  I  did  not;  he  had  by  that  time,  I  suppose,  jumped  from  the  President's 
box,  and  was  out  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  He  had  jumped  on  to  the  stage  from  the  President's  box  and  crossed  it 
before  you  got  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  happened  after  the  report  of  the  pistol. 

Q.  You  were  on  the  stage  when  you  heard  the  report? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  or  hear  him  leap  on  the  stage  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  did  not  see  anybody  running  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  hear  or  see  anything  at  all  that  happened  after  the  re- 
port of  the  pistol. 

Q.  You  have  stated  all  you  know  about  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Re-examination  by  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Mr.  Surratt  before?  (The  prisoner  was  requested  to- 
stand  up.) 

A.  No,  sir;  never. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  out  there  that  night? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  go  up  and  come  down  and  speak  to  Garland  and 
Giftbrd  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  did  not  while  I  was  there. 

Q.  As  well  as  you  can  i-ecollect,  how  many  persons  were  out  tliere  beside* 
Garland  and  GifFord  and  the  man  you  saw  standing  by  the  curbstone  ? 

A.  No  person  but  3Ir.  Lincoln's  driver. 

Q.  You  were  asked  how  you  fixed  this  time  of  calling  ten  minutes  past  ten. 
I  understand  you  to  say  that  immediately  after  learning  the  time  you  went  into 
the  theatre,  and  by  the  time  you  got  upon  the  stage  almost  you  heard  the  ex- 
plosion of  a  pistol  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  you  connected  the  two  things,  the  calling  of  the  lime  ten  minute* 
past  ten  and  this  fact  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  this  must  have  been  twelve  or  thirteen  minutes  aftei,  I  guess, 
about,  from  the  time  I  started  till  1  reached  there. 

Q.  Have  you  any  doubt  in  your  mind  at  all  that  one  of  tho.«e  men,  of  whom 
you  have  spoken,  did  say  in  a  loud  tone  of  voice  "  ten  minutes  j  ast  ten  ?" 

A.  I  have  not. 
37 


570  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  And  so  far  as  you  now  recollect,  there  was  nobody  else  present  except 
tlie  persons  you  have  mentioned  ? 
A.  They  are  all,  sh*. 

Louis  J.  Garland  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  In  Boston,  Massachusetts. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  any  way  connected  with  Ford's  theatre  com- 
pany in  April,  1865,  in  this  city. 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  was  costumer  there. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  at  the  theatre  during  the  day  of  Friday, 
the  14th  of  April,  on  the  night  of  which  the  President  was  assassinated? 

A.  I  Avas  there  from  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  after  the  assassination, 
with  short  intervals,  when  I  went  on  some  little  business  for  the  theatre. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  at  what  time  of  day  it  was  when  you  first  heard  of  the 
President  coming  there  that  evening  1 

A.  It  was  near  twelve  o'clock. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  there  that  day  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  What  was  he  doing  ? 

A.  Walking  up  and  down,  talking  to  the  men  who  were  about  there. 

Q,  What  time  of  day  was  it  ? 

A.  The  first  time  it  was  a  little  after  twelve  o'clock  ;  some  time  after  twelve 
o'clock,  but  not  quite  one  o'clock.  The  second  time,  I  think,  was  between  five 
and  six.  The  third  time  was  still  later  than  that.  I  did  not  speak  to  him  then, 
seeing  only  his  back  the  third  time. 

Q.  Were  you  there  during  the  rehearsal  of  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  all  through  the  rehearsal. 

Q.  State  what  time  it  took  place. 

A.  It  commenced  between  ten  and  eleven  o'clock ;  it  was  after  ten,  but  not 
quite  eleven. 

Q.  The  rehearsal  kept  up  till  when  ? 

A.  Until  two  o'clock,  on  account  of  a  song  that  was  to  be  sung  afterwards. 
We  did  not  learn  until  very  late  that  morning  that  the  President  was  to  be  there 
in  the  evening,  and  we  had,  therefore,  not  much  time  to  prepare  for  him.  A 
song,  entitled  "All  Honor  to  our  Soldiers,"  which  had  been  composed  by  Mr. 
Phillips,  and  set  to  music  by  Mr.  Withers,  was  to  have  been  sung  on  the  follow- 
ing night,  on  the  occasiim  of  Miss  Gurley's  benefit.  When  it  was  ascertained 
that  the  President  was  coming,  it  was  determined  to  have  the  song  that  night. 

Q.  And  that  lengthened  the  rehearsal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  during  the  rehearsal  ? 

A.  A  part  of  the  time  up  in  the  paint  gallery  ;  another  part  of  the  time  on 
the  stage,  and  at  other  times  out  in  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  At  any  time  during  that  rehearsal  did  you  see  the  curtain  down  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  never. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  at  that  time  of  their  beginning  to  fix  up  the 
President's  box  ? 

A.  It  was  after  twelve  o'clock.  I  was  in  the  paint  gallery  when  Peanut  John 
came  after  Spaugler  to  take  down  the  partition.  He  was  asleep  up  in  the  paint 
gallery  at  the  time. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  57  L 

Q.  That  night  were  you  out  in  front  of  the  theatre  after  the  end  of  the  second 
act  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  at  about  what  time  you  went,  how  long  you  staid  there,  and  who 
went  with  you,  if  any  one. 

A.  When  the  curtain  fell  after  the  second  act  I  was  behind  the  scenes.  I 
went  over  to  that  part  of  the  stage  called  the  "  0.  P."  side,  which  is  opposite 
the  prompter,  and  remained  there  a  moment.  Mr.  Gifford  was  giving  some  di- 
rections to  Mr.  Spangler,  who  was  standing  there  in  his  shirt-sleeves,  about  the 
scenery.  While  we  were  standing  there  Mr.  Dyett,  an  actor  belonging  to 
Miss  Keene's  company,  and  Mr.  Withers,  came  up  and  asked  Mr.  Gifford  and 
I  to  join  them  in  a  drink.  We  went  with  them  to  the  restaurant  adjoining, 
through  the  side  door. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  was  this  ? 

A.  After  the  second  act ;  after  the  curtain  had  fallen,  and  before  it  went  up 
on  the  second  act. 

Q.  When  you  went  into  this  saloon  did  you  see  anything  of  Mr.  Booth  ? 

A.  Mr.  Booth  was  just  going  out  of  the  front  door  as  we  entered  tbrough  the 
side  door.  Mr.  Taltavul  was  wiping  the  bar  off,  and  I  supposed  from  that 
Booth  had  taken  a  drink. 

Q.  How  long  dill  you  remain  in  the  saloon  ? 

A.  Until  we  had  our  drink.  Then  Mr.  Withers  and  Mr.  Dyett  passed  back 
into  the  theatre  through  the  same  door,  while  we  passed  out  at  the  front  door, 
and  stood  at  the  back  door  of  the  entrance  where  the  attaches  of  the  theatre 
g(j  in. 

Q.  At  that  time  was  Mr.  Booth  in  front  of  the  theatre,  or  did  you  see  him  at 
any  time  afterwards  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir ;  I  never  saw  him  after  that.  Mr.  Gifford  and  I  stood  there  talking 
for  some  time — perhaps  some  ten  or  fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  front  of  the  theatre  before  you  heard  of  the  assassination  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  we  staid  there  until  we  heard  of  it. 

Q.  Now  state  where  you  and  Mr.  Gifford  stood. 

A.  Mr.  Gifford  and  I  stood  at  first  a  little  nearer  the  back  door,  near  the  private 
entrance.  Then  we  moved  more  out  on  the  sidewalk  up  to  the  carriage  plat- 
form that  was  in  front  of  the  theatre.  Mr.  Gifford  was  looking  up  at  the  theatre 
talking  about  improvements  that  he  was  going  to  make  during  the  recess. 
While  we  were  standing  there  Mr.  Hess  came  out  and  joined  us.  He  askcsd 
what  time  it  was.  Mr.  Gifford  was  going  to  pull  out  his  watch,  but  instead  of 
doing  so  turned  to  me  and  said,  "  I  fixed  the  clock  in  the  vestibule  by  the  ball 
to-day,  and  it  is  right  by  that."  I  stepped  into  the  vestibule,  saw  the  time,  and 
then  told  Mr.  Hess  what  time  it  was. 

Q.  What  time  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  ten  minutes  after  ten. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  in  what  direction  Mr.  Hess  went,  and  whether  he 
went  up  or  down  the  street  at  any  time. 

A.  He  stood  there  for  a  moment  and  then  walked  off.  I  did  not  pay  par- 
ticular attention  as  to  which  way  he  went;  whether  he  went  up  the  street,  or 
turned  back  and  went  into  the  theatre  or  not,  I  have  now  no  recollection. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  went  out  to  that  platform  was  any  one  sitting  on  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  there  was.  There  might  have  been,  but  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  it.  If  there  had  been,  Mr.  Gifford  would  certainly  have  spoken  of  it 
and  made  them  get  off. 

Q.  After  this  crying  of  ten  minutes  past  ten  how  long  did  you  remain  there  ? 

A.  We  remained  there  until  a  man  came  out  and  said  to  us,  "  Somebody  has 
shot  the  President.''  Mr.  Gifford  made  some  rather  pleasant  remark  about  its 
being  a  story,  when  the  man  passed  on  down  the  street.     In  au  instant  after- 


572  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H,    SURE  ATT. 

wards  we  saw  two  or  three  people  come  out,  among  others  one  of  the  ushers  of 
the  theatre,  Mr.  Ray  bold,  who  came  up  to  us  and  said,  ''  Somebody  has  shot  the 
President,  and  jumped  on  the  stage  and  run  behind  the  scenes." 

Q.  That  was  a  very  few  minutes  after  the  crying  of  the  time? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     Mr.  Gifford  started  immediately  to  go  behind  the  scenes. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  before  you  saw  him  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  him  before  I  saw  him  in  the  prisoners'  dock  here. 
He  was  pointed  out  to  me. 

Q.  While  you  were  down  there  standing  in  front  of  the  theatre,  did  you  see 
him,  or  a  man  of  his  height,  coming  down  from  F  street  to  two  men  standing 
by  the.  theatre,  and  call  the  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir.    No  one  came  down  and  called  the  time  while  we  stood  there. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  Mr.  Hess  was  dressed  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury. 

A.  He  had  on  a  spring  overcoat — a  new  one. 

Q.  What  color  was  it  ? 

A.  A  light  gray.  He  had  on  a  pair  of  pantaloons  almost  the  same  color,  but 
not  quite. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  shape  of  his  hat  1 

A.  I  know  the  shape  of  the  hat  he  wore  that  winter.  I  do  not  remember 
noticing  his  hat  particularly  that  night.  He  had  a  hat  with  a  round,  soft  crown 
and  stiff'  brim. 

Q.  When  yon  announced  the  time  as  ten  minutes  past  ten,  did  Mr.  Hess  grow 
very  pale,  and  look  very  anxious  ? 

A.  I  did  not  pay  any  particular  attention  to  see  whether  he  looked  pale  or 
not. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  did  not  see  Mr. Booth  in  front  of  the  theatre. 
I  ask  you  if  it  is  possible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  two  men  could  have 
stood  by  that  pier  of  the  theatre  for  twenty  minutes  after  you  went  out  there 
without  your  seeing  them  ? 

Objected  to.     Question  withdrawn. 

Q.  Can  you  say  positively  whether  Mr.  Booth  was  standing  for  a  number 
of  minutes  in  ft-ont  of  that  pier  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Mr.  Booth  was  not  standing  in  front  of  the  theatre  while  we  were  there. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepoxt: 

Q.  What  was  the  color  of  the  hat  Hess  wore  that  night  ? 

A.  Dark. 

Q.  Was  it  black,  or  what  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  very  near  black.     It  was  a  mixture. 

Q,.  Mixture  of  what.     What  color  was  it  ? 

A.  White  and  black. 

Q.  Checked,  Avas  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  checked. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  color  it  was. 

A.  It  was  a  hat  woven  together  of  different  colors,  but  no  decided  pattern. 
It  was  a  mixture  of  colors. 

Q.  All  sorts  of  colors  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  all  sorts  of  colors,  but  black  and  white. 

Q.  The  hat  you  describe  is  the  one  he  wore  on  the  night  in  question  ? 

A.  I  believe  so. 

Q.  Are  you  pretty  sure  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  am  not  certain  about  it.  I  am  certain  about  every  other  part 
of  his  costume,  but  not  about  his  hat. 

Q.  After  you  told  him  what  the  time  was,  did  he  say  anything  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRA.TT.  573 

A.  He  said  it  was  pretty  near  time  for  him  to  go  and  get  ready. 

Q.  Was  that  all  he  said  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  do  not  remember  of  anything  else. 

Q.  He  did  not  say  anything  else  about  the  time,  did  he,  except  to  ask  the 
time  ? 

A.  I  think  he  made  the  remark  that  it  was  pretty  near  time  for  him  to  get 
ready  for  the  song. 

Q.  Is  that  all  he  said  1 

A.  That  is  all  I  remember. 

Q.  That  is  every  word  that  you  remember  of  his  saying  ? 

A.  That  is  eveiy  woi'd  that  I  can  call  to  memory  just  now. 

Q.  Which  way  did  he  go  after  he  said  it  was  time  for  him  to  dress — that 
being  all  he  said  ? 

A.  He  went  up  the  street,  I  believe  ;  then  turned,  and,  as  ftir  as  I  can  recol- 
lect, went  into  the  theatre. 

Q.  What  is  your  recollection  about  it  ?  Did  he  go  up  the  street,  or  go  directly 
into  the  theatre  ? 

A.  I  cannot  call  to  mind  which, 

Q.  What  is  your  best  recollection  1 

A.  The  fact  is  I  have  no  recollection  at  all  about  it,  any  more  than  his  being 
there. 

Q.  Do  you  think  he  went  up  the  street  ? 

A.  He  may  not  have  gone  very  far. 

Q.  Do  you  think  he  went  up  the  street  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  he  went  up  the  street  or  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  wish  the  jury  to  understand — that  he  went  up  the  street, 
or  that  he  did  not  ? 

A.  He  walked  backwards  and  forwards  for  a  minute  or  so. 

Q.  Did  he  go  up  part  of  the  street  ? 

A.  He  went  up  above  where  we  were  standing. 

Q.  What  did  he  then  do  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  Avhat  he  did.     He  came  back  again. 

Q.  How  far  did  he  go  up  ?  . 

A.  Ten  or  fifteen  feet. 

Q.  Which? 

A.  I  do  not  know  which. 

Q.  Did  he  then  go  directly  into  the  theatre  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  whether  he  went  into  the  theatre.  He  was  one  of 
the  attaches  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  State  whether  he  went  into  the  theatre. 

A.  1  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not.  I  Avas  not  interested  in  where  he 
went. 

Q.  You  are  from  Boston,  I  believe  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Born  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  New  York. 

Q.  What  has  been  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  costumer  at  the  theati*e. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Hess  before? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  when  he  went  into  tlie  theatre  1 

A.  No,  sir. 


574  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  standing  on  the  pavement  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  go  to  the  President's  carriage  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  go  into  the  drinkiug-house? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  after  we  came  out. 

Q.  Before  you  came  out] 

A.  I  could  not  see  him  before  I  went  in.  because  I  went  in  the  back  way. 

Q.  You  Lave  been  examined  before? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  before  the  military  commission. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  before  anything  about  this  crying  of  the  time? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Why  not? 

A.  Because  I  was  never  asked  the  question. 

Q.  Because  you  never  had  your  attention  called  to  it ;  that  is  the  reason, 
isn't  it? 

A.  No,  sir;  my  attention  was  called  to  it  then  as  it  is  now.  They  tried  to 
make  Spangler  the  man  at  that  time.  My  attention  was  called  to  it  as  much 
then  as  now. 

Q.  Was  your  attention  called  to  Spangler? 

WiT.\ESS.  At  that  time? 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  Yes,  sir, 

Witness.  When  I  read  Sergeant  Dye's  evidence 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  asked  you  whether  your  attention  was  called  to  Spangler 
on  that  trial  by  anybody  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  called  your  attention  to  it? 

A.  Lawyer  Ewing  and  Judge  Bingham. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Spangler  there  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did.  •   . 

Q.  Where? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  the  theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  front  ?  * 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Atzei'odt? 

A.  No,  sir. 
-Q.  In  what  places  did  you  see  Booth  after  six  o'clock  that  night  ? 

A.  I  only  saw  him  going  out  of  the  door. 

Q.  At  six  o'clock,  or  about  that  time,  did  you  see  him? 

A.  It  was  some  time  between  five  and  six. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  Passing  up  the  street  on  foot. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him? 

A.  There  was  no  person  with  him. 

Q.  Which  way  was  he  going? 

A.  He  was  going  towards  F  street. 

Q.  Past  the  theatre? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  ? 

A.  I  was  sitting  on  the  steps  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  What  doing? 

A.  Doing  nothing  in  particular;  just  amusing  myself. 
Q.  AYas  anybody  with  you? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  him  before  on  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SUKRATT.  575 

Q.  Where? 

A.  In  front  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Where  did  you  take  breakfast  that  morning? 

A,  In  Schwatze's,  next  door. 

Q.  When  you  saw  him  in  the  morning,  who  was  Avith  him? 

A.  He  was  standing  in  front  of  the  theatre  with  some  of  the  people. 

Q.  Who? 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  they  were. 

Q.  Was  he  talking  with  them  ? 

A.  I  suppose  so ;  he  seemed  to  be  standing  in  company  with  them  all. 

Q.  Who  was  with  him? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect;  there  were  a  great  many.     Our  company  then   con- 
sisted of  about  forty  people ;  I  mean  the  theatre  company. 

Q.  Can  you  remember  an}''  of  them? 

A.  I  could  remember  them  if  I  could  recall  them. 

Q.  Give  them  all. 

A.  Well,  John  Evans  was  there. 

Q.  Who  else  ? — that  is  one. 

A.  John  Matthews  was  there;  Debonay  was  there;  Ferguson  was  there. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  want  every  one  who  was  there  with  Booth. 

A.  I  can't  remember  all,  with  Booth. 

Q.  I  am  only  asking  for  the  names  of  those  who  were  with  Booth  in  front 
of  the  theatre  that  morning. 

A.  I  cannot  tell  those  that  were  there  with  Booth.     T  am  only  naming  those 
who  belonged  to  our  company. 

Q.  Can't  you  give  us  the  name  of  one  that  you  saw  talking  with  Booth  in 
front  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  cannot  remember  one. 
Q.  But  you  knew  them  ? 
A.  I  knew  them. 

Q.  After  breakfast  that  morning  what  did  you  do  ? 
A.  Went  to  work  arranging  the  wardrobe. 
Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  I  was  there  during  the  rehearsal,  backwards  and  forwards  on  the  stage. 
Q.  I  believe  you  stated  in  your  direct  examination  that  you  had  to  leave  on 
some  business  ? 

A.  That  was  after  rehearsal. 
Q.  What  time  ? 

A.  I  suppose  between  one  and  two  o'clock. 
Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  ? 

A.  With  the  stage  manager  to  get  the  bills  altered  so  as  to  get  a  line  put  in 
about  the  expected  presence  of  the  President.     We  stopped   at  several  places, 
however,  before  we  got  there. 
Q.  On  the  avenue  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  did  not  go  down  on  the  avenue  the  first  time ;  I  called  at  the 
Republican  othce,  and  the  telegraph  office  next  door  to  it  on  Ninth  street ;  wont 
to  a  milliner's  on  Ninth  street  where  they  sold  ribbons ;  and  also  went  to  a  mil- 
liner's on  p]  street,  a  little  from  the  corner  of  Seventh  street. 
Q.  For  the  piu-pose  of  getting  things  to  decorate  the  box  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  for  the  purpose  of  getting  ribbons  to  make  badges  for  the  gentle- 
men who  were  going  to  sing  in  the  national  anthem,  or  whatever  it  was. 
Q.  This  was  the  14th  that  you  were  out  on  this  expedition  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  in  company  with  ]\Ir.  G.  B.  Wright. 
Q.  How  long  were  you  gone  1 
A.  I  suppose  about  an  hour  or  more, 
Q.  Did  you  go  anywhere  else  at  that  time  ? 


576  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  don't  remember  that  we  did  go  anywhere  else  up  Seventh  street.  He 
then  went  to  dinner  at  the  Herndon  House,  and  I  started  and  went  down  to  the 
theatre.     I  took  dinner  at  the  restaurant  next  door  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  During  all  this  time  that  you  Avere  out,  and  the  time  you  were  taking 
dinner,  of  course  you  had  no  personal  knowledge  of  what  took  place  at  the 
theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  eat  your  dinner? 

A.  I  think  it  was  two,  or  somewhere  about  that  time. 

Q.  That  was  after  you  came  back  from  this  other  expedition  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  does  it  happen  that  you  remember  these  exact  words  about  the  calling 
of  the  time,  and  yet  do  not  remember  one  of  those  who  were  present  talking 
with  Booth  on  that  day  in  front  of  the  theatre,  notwithstanding  you  knew 
them  ? 

A.  Because  I  do  not  recollect  who  in  particular  were  there.  I  did  not  take 
particular  notice  ;  I  gave  a  full  statement  of  pretty  much  everything  I  knew 
to  Judge  Olin ;  and  Judge  Olin  carried  it  down  to  the  other  place. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  Judge  Olin  about  calling  the  time,  ten  minutes  past  ten  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  nothing  of  that  kind  was  asked.  What  I  then  stated  was  en- 
tirely connected  with  myself.  Judge  Olin  asked  me  to  give  him  a  synopsis  of 
my  business,  from  the  morning  until  the  night,  and  I  did  so.  I  told  him  about 
my  being  in  front  of  the  theatre,  and  who  1  was  standing  with. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  about  Mr.  Hess  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  it  was  not  asked  me.     I  merely  answered  Judge  Olin's  questions. 

Q.  You  have  told  the  jury  all  the  words  you  can  remember  of  Hess  saying 
to  you  after  you  told  him  the  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  He  said  nothing  else  ? 

A.   I  do  not  remember  that  he  did. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  Hess  did  not  say  anything  else,  but  you  do 
not  recollect  of  anything  more  1 

A.  That  is  it,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Atzerodt  before  the  conspiracy  trials  took  place? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  saw  Atzerodt  until  I  saw  him  at  the  penitentiary,  when  I 
was  on  the  stand  as  a  witness. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  prisoner  before  you  saw  him  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  even  heard  of  him. 

Q.  You  were  asked  as  to  what  enabled  you  to  fix  this  circumstance  of  the 
calling  of  the  time.  Did  anything  happen  between  the  calling  of  the  time  and 
the  announcement  of  the  President's  death  ? 

A.  Nothing ;  the  street  was  perfectly  quiet ;  there  was  not  a  soul,  as  far  as 
I  can  remember,  on  it. 

Q.  Had  that  any  connection  with  the  fixing  of  the  calling  of  the  time  in  your 
memory  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  has  not  been  fixed  in  any  way. 

Q    You  recollect  the  fact  independently  that  Hess  came  and  said  this  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  until  10  o'clock  to-morrow  (Tuesday)  morning. 

Tuesday,  July  9,  1867. 
The  court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 
A.  R.  Eastman  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  State  your  profession  or  occupation. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  577 

A.  I  am  professor  of  mathematics  at  the  Xaval  Observatory  in  this  city. 

Q.  "Were  you  there  in  April,  1S65  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  of  that  year,  state,  if  you  please,  whether 
you  were  engaged  in  making  observations. 

A.  I  was  engaged  from  about  seven  o'clock  until  twenty  minutes  past  eleven 
o'clock,  observing  the  stars  and  the  planets. 

Q.   State,  if  you  please,  at  what  time  the  moon  rose  that  night. 

A.  It  rose  two  minutes  past  ten. 

Q.  In  what  part  of  the  heavens — how  far  southeast  or  north  ? 

A.  It  was  eighteen  degrees  and  a  few  minutes  south. 

Q.  At  eleven  o'clock  what  was  the  elevation  of  the  moon  above  the  horizon  1 

A.  It  would  have  been  about  fifteen  degrees,  the  moon  being  eighteen  de- 
grees south ;  and  its  motion  being  slower  than  that  of  the  planets,  it  would  have 
been  about  tifieen  degrees  above  the  horizon. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  about  what  arc  of  a  circle  the  course  of  the  moon 
described ;  how  high  the  highest  southern  elevation  would  have  been  or  was 
that  night. 

A.  It  would  have  been  about  thirty-six  degrees  above  the  southern  horizon 
at  its  highest  elevation. 

Q.  That  would  have  been  about  on  this  elevation  ?  (Pointing  to  the  cornice 
of  the  room.) 

A.  Yes,  sir;  about  that. 

Q  .Less  than  half  way  between  the  zenith  and  the  horizon  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  less  than  half  way. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  the  heavens  were  or  not  obscured  by  clouds 
that  evening. 

A.  At  six  o'clock  that  afternoon  it  was  perfectly  clear.  The  wind  changed 
to  southwest,  and  soon  after  the  southwestern  portion  of  the  sky  became  some- 
what obscured.  At  half  past  seven  it  was  somewhat  hazy.  At  nine  o'clock  the 
sky  was  about  one-third  clouded.  I  recollect  that  it  was  about  one-third  clouded 
on  account  of  an  observation  made  by  one  of  the  clerks  who  was  sent  to  watch 
at  that  time.  At  ten  the  sky  was  nearly  obscured.  At  twenty  minutes  past 
eleven  it  was  so  cloudy  that  I  could  not  see  stars  of  the  third  magnitude. 

Q.  During  that  evenuig  was  there  or  not  a  steady  increase  of  earthy  haze  up 
to  eleven  o'clock  1 

A.  I  think  there  was ;  there  was  a  steady  increase  of  cirrous  clouds. 

Q.  At  eleven  o'clock  can  you  state  whether  it  was  or  was  not  dark  ? 

A.  It  was  comparatively  so,  because  the  moon  was  so  much  obscured  by  the 
haze  that  the  stars  could  not  be  seen  by  a  glass,  except  those  of  the  first  magni- 
tude.    You  could  just  see  their  position. 

Q.  At  that  time  I  understand  the  moon  was  just  fifteen  degrees  up  ;  and  that 
reaching  that  elevation  the  moon  would  scarce  be  above  the  horizon  of  the  hills  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  would  have  been  within  fifteen  degrees. 

Q.  Can  you  convey  to  the  jury  an  impression  of  the  shadow  thrown  by  a 
two-story  house  standing  on  the  south  side  of  the  street,  fronting  north,  at  that 
time,  between  10  and  11  o'clock? 

A.  There  would  have  been  a  shadow  on  the  north  side  of  any  house  at  any 
time  during  the  night.  The  moon  rising  eighteen  degrees  south  of  the  equator, 
would  not  illuminate  the  north  side  of  any  building  that  night ;  and  as  it  moved 
in  an  arc  eighteen  degrees  south  of  the  equator  for  the  first  hour,  there  would 
have  been  no  light  even  if  the  house  was  a  corner  house,  within  ten  or  fifteen 
feet  of  the  opposite  corner  of  the  house.  It  would  depend  very  much  on  the 
position  of  the  house  how  much  shadow  there  would  be.  If  the  house  stood 
on  the  west  corner  it  would  have  all  been  in  the  shadow  then. 


578  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Supposing  the  bouse  to  bave  stood  fair  east  and  west,  would  there  have 
been  any  light  striking  the  north  side  of  that  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  the  moon  was  pretty  well  covered  with  haze.  Will  you  tell  the 
jury  what  you  mean  by  "cirrous  clouds'?" 

A.  I  mean  these  very  light  clouds. 

Q.  Light  thin  clouds  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  light  thin  clouds,  very  much  the  appearance  and  outline  of 
curled  hair. 

Q.  They  are  called  "  horses'  tails  "  sometimes,  are  they  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  is  what  you  mean  by  cirrous  clouds  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  could  see  the  stars  through  them  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  part  of  the  time  ? 

A.  Not  through  the  cirrous  clouds.  You  could  only  see  stars  of  the  first 
magnitude. 

Q.  Cirrous  clouds  are  not  uniform,  are  they  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  can  see  between  the  cirrous  clouds  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  between  them,  but  not  through  them. 

Q.  When  the  sky  is  covered  with  cirrous  clouds,  there  are  spaces  between, 
are  there  not  ? 

A.  Sometimes. 

Q.  When  there  is  a  moon  on  such  a  night  as  this  it  gives  some  light,  whether 
there  are  cirrous  clouds  or  not  1 

A.  It  depends  upon  the  density  of  the  clouds.  Sometimes  the  clouds  are 
more  dense  than  at  others. 

Q.  How  on  the  night  in  question  at  half  past  ten  ? 

A.  On  this  night  at  half  past  ten,  or  somewhere  between  ten  and  eleven,  I 
went  outside  of  the  building  and  looked  at  the  moon  to  see  if  there  was  any 
probability  of  my  observing  when  it  came  to  meridian  at  three  o'clock  in  the 
morning.     I  could  just  see  the  form  of  the  moon. 

Q.  Now  would  you  tell  the  jury  if  this  was  not  Friday  before  Easter  Sun- 
day 1 

A.  I  am  not  well  enough  posted  to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  what  is  the  condition  of  the  moon  at  Easter  always 
as  to  its  full  1 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  makes  Easter  at  all  ?     Has  it  anything  to  do  with  the  moon  ? 

A.  I  am  not  posted  about  that  matter. 

Q.  Then  you  are  not  a  theological  professor  as  well  as  astronomical  ?  But 
cannot  you  tell  us  whether  Easter  refers  to  the  condition  of  the  full  moon  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  the  jury  as  to  what  was  the  condition  of  the  moon  as  to  its 
full  l 

A.  Yes,  sir.  The  moon  was  full  on  the  morning  of  the  11th  of  April  at  4 
o'clock  in  the  morning  ;  consequently  it  was  about  three  days  past  full,  towards 
the  last  quarter — about  two-thirds  full. 

Q.  Will  you  take  this  almanac,  (Tribune  Almanac  of  1865,)  look  at  it  and 
state  whether  or  not  it  gives  a  correct  condition  of  the  moon  as  to  its  full  on  the 
14tli  day  of  April,  1865,  in  Washington  ? 

A.  This  almanac  states  that  the  moon  rose  at  three  minutes  past  ten. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  579 

Q.  I  am  asking  as  to  its  full  1 

A.  It  says  it  was  full  on  the  tenth  day,  eleven  hours  and  twenty-one  minutes. 

Q.  Does  it  say  on  the  tenth? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  AVas  it  on  the  tenth  1 

A.  The  Nautical  Almanac  which  I  took  as  authority,  says  it  was  on  the 
eleventh. 

Q.  I  understand  that  to  be  the  eleventh  in  the  almanac.  I  am  not  sure  that 
I  am  right.  Now  look  again  and  see  when  the  moon  rose  according  to  that  al- 
manac. 

A.  It  rose  at  ten  hours  and  three  minutes  ;  in  other  words,  at  three  minutes 
past  ten. 

Q.  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  almanac  you  have  was  calcu- 
lated for  the  latitude  of  Washington.  Look  again  and  see  when  the  moon  rose 
on  that  night. 

A.  At  nine  o'clock  and  fifty-nine  minutes. 

Q.  How  many  minutes  difference  did  you  make  in  your  calculation  from 
that  1 

A.  Three  minutes. 

Q.  Where  did  you  calciilate  it  from  ? 

A.  From  the  latitude  of  Washington. 

Q.  In  calculating  it  did  you  refer  to  any  almanac  ? 

A.  1  took  the  position  of  the  moon  from  the  Nautical  Almanac. 

Q.  Do  you  find  in  any  almanac  that  the  moon  rose  three  minutes  different 
from  that  ? 

A.  The  Nautical  Almanac  does  not  give  the  time;  I  computed  it. 

Q.  Could  not  you  have  made  a  mistake  of  three  minutes  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  1  suppose  I  could, 

Mr.  PiKRREPONT.  Well,  I  think  you  did. 

Mr.  Bradley  objected  to  that  description  of  remark  to  the  witness,  who  was 
a  scientific  man. 

By  ^Ir.  Merrfck.  Are  you  satisfied  that  your  calculation  is  correct  ? 

A.  My  calculation  was  made  twice  and  checked  by  another  man  two  or  three 
days  ago. 

Q.  Are  you  satisfied  it  was  correct  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo.xt  : 

Q.  But  you  are  also  satisfied  it  might  have  been  incorrect  ? 
A.  I  am  not  satisfied  that  it  was  incorrect. 

Q.  But  you  are  satisfied  that  you  might  have  made  a  mistake  of  three  min- 
utes 1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  if  I  had  intended,  but  not  otherwise. 

James  R.  Ford — residence  Baltimore — sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  State  whether  you  were  at  any  time  connected  with  a  dramatic  establish- 
ment of  John  T.  Ford,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  in  1865. 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  was,  from  the  1st  of  January  up  to  the  end  of  July,  in  1S65. 

Q.  Please  to  state  what  was  your  position  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  I  was  business  manager. 

Q.  On  the  ]4th  of  April  were  you  in  charge  of  the  theatre? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  your  brother,  the  proprietor  ? 

A.  My  brother  was  in  Ilichmoni]  on  the  14th  of  April. 

Q.  Had  you  charge  of  the  theatre  at  that  time  ? 


580  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  had. 

Q.  Where  did  you  board  at  that  time  ? 

A.  At  the  National  Hoteh 

Q.  And  lodge  ? 

A.  I  lodged  over  the  theatre  in  an  adjoining  house. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Wilkes  Booth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  know  him  ] 

A.  I  have  known  him  for  about  ten  years. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  he  was  or  was  not  boarding  at  the  National  Hotel 
at  that  time  ? 

A.  He  was  always  boarding  at  the  National  Hotel,  as  far  as  I  remember,  when 
in  Washington. 

Q.  On  the  morning  of  the  14th  of  April,  state  whether  you  were  at  the  office 
of  the  theatre  and  received  any  intimation  that  the  President  intended  visiting 
the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  at  the  office  from  ten  o'clock  until  half  past  eleven  o'clock. 
The  President's  messenger  came  about  half  past  ten  o'clock  and  inquired  if  he 
could  get  a  box  that  evening,  and  said  that  the  President,  his  lady,  and  General 
Grant  were  going  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  Then  you  say  about  half  past  eleven  o'clock  you  left  the  theatre.  Did 
you  make  any  arrangement  for  the  decoration  of  the  box  before  you  left  the 
theatre  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  when  you  left  ? 

A.  I  went  to  the  Treasury  building  and  saw  Colonel  Jones,  to  get  some  flags 
to  decorate  the  box  with. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  how  long  you  were  absent  ? 

A.  I  was  absent  from  the  theatre  about  an  hour,  I  should  judge. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  when  you  returned  there  was  any  rehearsal  going 
on,  or  whether  it  had  not  begun  ? 

A.  The  rehearsal  began  before  I  left  the  theatre. 

Q.  Was  it  going  on  Avhen  you  returned  1 

A.  I  cannot  exactly  state.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not.  It  should 
have  continued  on. 

Q,.  Who  prepared  the  advertisements  for  the  President's  visit  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  that  your  ordinary  duty? 

A.  No,  sir ;  Mr.  Phillips,  the  stage  manager,  ordinarily  did  that  work.  He 
was  busy  at  rehearsal  at  the  time  and  could  not  attend  to  it. 

Q.  Was  that  advertisement  prepared  before  you  went  to  the  Treasury  or 
after  your  return  ? 

A.  Before  I  went.     I  took  one  of  them  as  I  went  to  the  Treasury  building. 

Q.  Before  you  left,  and  when  you  returned,  was  or  was  not  the  curtain  up  ? 

A.  When  I  left  the  theatre  the  curtain  was .  up,  and  the  rehearsal  was  just 
commencing. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Booth  that  day  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  and  where  1 

A.  I  saw  him  at  about  half  past  twelve  o'clock,  at  the  corner  of  E  and  Tenth 
streets. 

Q.  Which  way  were  you  going  then  ? 

A.  I  was  going  down  E  street  towards  the  theatre. 

Q.  And  he  was  going  up  which  street  ? 

A.  He  was  going  up  E  street. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Washington  that  night  ?. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  581 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  was  there  after  ten  o'clock. 

Q.  Previous  to  that  time  where  were  you  1 

A.  I  went  to  Baltimore  with  Mr.  John  T.  Ford's  wife's  sister  at  half  past 
three  o'clock. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  yon  return  ? 

A.  I  left  Baltimore  at  8.50. 

Q.  And  arrived  here  at  what  time  1 

A.  At  twenty- five  minutes  past  ten. 

Q.  State  whether  you  called  at  the  theatre  after  your  return  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  got  into  an  F  street  car  at  the  depot  and  rode  up  to  the 
theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  ride  inside  of  the  car  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  was  out  on  the  front  platform. 

Q.  Did  you  notice  the  character  of  the  night  as  you  came  up  from  the  depot 
to  the  theatre,  as  to  whether  it  was  light  or  not  ? 

A.  It  was  a  cloudy  evening. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  the  moon  was  visible  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  it. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  get  to  the  theatre  ? 

A.  About  twenty-five  minutes  past  eleven  o'clock,  I  judge  I  got  there. 

Q.  That  was  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  do  those  doors  that  lead  from  the  vestibule  into  the  theatre  open  ? 
Do  they  push  or  pull  ? 

A.  They  all  opened  outwards  towards  the  street. 

Q.  You  could  not  open  them  by  pushing'  against  them  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Booth  had  engaged  either  of  these  boxes.  No. 
7  or  S,  a  short  time  before  the  assassination  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  engaged  the  lower  private  box  some  two  or  three  weeks 
before  the  assassination,  and  afterwards  changed  it  for  an  upper  box  and  took 
box  7.     It  was  the  box  he  generally  occupied  when  he  came  to  the  theatre. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  were  ladies  with  him  that  night  ? 

A.  He  said  he  engaged  the  box  for  ladies. 

Q.  Did  he  come  himself  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  ladies  with  him? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  they  were,  any  of  them? 

A.  They  came  from  the  National  Hotel,  I  believe. 

Q.  Did  you  know  any  of  the  ladies  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  any  of  them  personally. 

Q.  "Were  they  ladies  you  had  seen  at  the  National  Hotel,  or  any  of  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q    "Who  were  they  1 

A.  They  were  the  Misses  Hale,  I  believe. 

Q.  They  were  none  of  them  members  of  the  Surratt  family  ? 

A.  I  never  knew  any  of  the  Surratt  family. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  before  you  saw  him  here  ? 
(Prisoner  stood  up.) 

A.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 
Q.  Did  you  ever  know  Miss  Hale  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;  not  personally. 
Q.  Did  you  say  there  were  two  Misses  Hale  there  ? 


582  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  saw  two  ladies. 
Q.  Did  you  see  two  Misses  Hale  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  their  names  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know  their  names. 
Q.  Had  you  ever  seen  them  before  '' 
A.  I  had  seen  thera  at  the  hotel  befoi-e. 
Q.  Were  they  both  the  same  size  or  different  size  1 
A.  One  of  them  was  a  little  larger  than  the  other. 
Q.  What  colored  hair  had  they  ? 
A.  I  think  they  had  dark  hair. 
Q.  AVhich  had  dark  hair  ? 
A.  I  cannot  exactly  state  which  had  dark  hair. 
Q,  Had  one  light  hair  ] 
A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Both  dark  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Had  they  both  dark  eyes  1 
A.  I  never  took  notice  of  their  eyes. 
Q.  Were  they  large  or  small  ? 
A.  One  was  an  ordinary  sized  lady. 
Q.  Which  one  ? 

A.  Neither  was  very  large  nor  extremely  small. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  as  to  their  height ;  were  they  tall  or  the  contrary  1 
A.  The  largest  one  was  a  medium  sized  lady. 
Q.  Was  she  thin  or  stout  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  exactly. 
Q.  She  had  black  eyes  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  her  eyes. 
Q.  But  she  had  black  hair  ? 
A.  Dark  hair. 
Q.  Quite  dark  ? 

A.  1  cannot  exactly  tell  jon  the  shade  of  her  hair 
Q.  What  kind  of  hair  had  the  short  one? 
A.  She  had  dark  hair. 
Q.  And  dark  eyes  1 
A.  I  do  not  remember  the  eyes  at  all. 
Q.  Was  she  small  ? 
^  A.  No,  sir. 
Q.  Was  she  short  ? 

A.   She  was  a  medium  sized  lady.  She  was  not  very  short. 
Q.  But  the  other  one  yon  said  was  a  medium  sized  lady ;  I  am  now  speaking 
of  the  one  not  medium  sized. 

A.  They  were  very  nearly  the  same  size. 
Q.  Was  she  stout  or  thin  ? 
A.  Rather  stout. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  How  often  did  you  say  Booth  occupied  a  private  box  with  ladies  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  seeing  him  more  than  twice. 

Q.  Did  he  have  several  ladies  on  both  occasions  ] 

A.  I  do  not  remember  on  both  occasions. 

Q.  What  interval  was  there  between  them  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  that. 

Q.  Can  you  give  any  description  of  the  ladies  he  had  on  the  other  occasion  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  583 

Q.  How  many  did  he  have  1 

A.  I  do  not  know.     He  merely  said  he  was  going  to  bring  some  ladies,  and 
I  saw  him  come  in  with  some.     I  do  not  know  whether  he  had  two  or  a  dozen. 
Q.  Do  you  knoAv  Miss  Fitzpatrick,  of  this  eity  ] 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  Miss  Dean,  of  this  city  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  During  the  rebellion,  what  side  did  you  take  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  proposed  to  ask  the  witness  this  question,  and  probably 
should  ask  several  others  the  same  question  ;  that  as  a  matter  of  law  he  had  a 
right,  on  cross-examination,  to  ask  the  question  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
temper  and  standing  of  the  witness  in  relation  to  the  murder  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  supposed  it  might  tend  to  degrade  him. 

The  Court  said  that  understanding  the  question  to  apply  simply  to  whether 
the  witness  took  sides  in  the  rebellion,  and  not  as  to  his  political  relations,  he 
would  allow  the  question  to  be  put. 
^   Mr.  Merrick.  And  the  witness  answer  or  not,  as  he  pleases  ] 

The  Court.  The  witness  may  answer  or  not,  as  he  pleases. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  (to  witness.)  What  is  your  answer,  or  do  you  decline  to 
answer  1 

Witness.  I  decline  to  answer. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Then  you  may  go. 

The  witness  left  the  stand,  and  after  some  conversation  with  the  counsel  for 
the  defence,  Mr.  Merrick  announced  to  the  court  that  the  witness  desired  to 
answer  the  question  last  put  to  him. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  did  not  desire  to  ask  the  witness  any  more  ques- 
tions ;  that  the  witness  had  left  the  stand,  and  he  had  done  with  him. 

Mr.  Bradley  remarkeil  that  the  witness  did  not  understand  the  question,  and 
that  he  desired  to  make  an  explanation. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  left  the  stand,  and  directed  counsel  to  call 
another  witness. 

Mr.  Bradley  remarked  that  the  witness  desired  himself  to  make  an  expla- 
nation, lest  his  refusal  to  answer  the  question  should  be  misunderstood. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  had  the  question  fairly  put  to  him,  and  that  it 
was  not  for  counsel  on  one  side  or  the  other,  or  for  the  court,  to  dictate  to  him 
what  answer  he  should  make.  The  witness  had  made  his  answei',  and  that  was 
an  end  of  it. 

Mr.  Merrick  desired  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  the  counsel  had  not 
dictated  to  the  witness  any  answer.  They  had  merely  asked  him  if  he  under- 
stood the  question. 

The  Court  said  the  counsel  should  have  asked  the  question  before  the  wit- 
ness left  the  stand ;  and  directed  them  to  call  another  witness. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  court  to  be  noted. 

Willi  A.M  Dixon,  chief  engineer  United  States  fire  brigade,  Washington, 
sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  What  position  did  you  hold  in  April,  1865  ? 
A.  The  same  I  hold  now. 

By  Mr.  ^Ierrick  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  about  the  condition  of  the  night  of  Friday, 
April  14  ? 


584  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  do,  sir.  About  half  past  nine  that  night,  an  alarm  of  fire  was  struck 
from  box  25.  The  fire  proved  to  be  a  bonfire  in  the  direction  of  Kendall 
Green.     I  rode  a  horse  to  that  fire. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  asked  what  that  bonfire  had  to  do  with  this  case. 

Mr.  Merrick  desired  the  witness  to  go  on,  in  his  own  way,  remarking  that  if 
the  horse  stumbled  because  it  was  a  dark  night,  it  might  have  something  di- 
rectly to  do  with  it. 

After  some  conversation,  the  witness  was  directed  to  proceed. 

Witness.  In  going  to  the  fire  the  route  I  took  was  down  H  street.  I  struck 
H  at  its  mtersection  with  New  York  avenue,  and  kept  on  down  H  street. 

Q.  You  entered  at  Dr.  Gurley's  church,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  No ;  that  church  is  on  New  York  avenue,  I  believe,  above  Thirteenth. 
It  was  a  dark  night,  and  cloudy — so  much  so  that  I  was  obliged  to  proceed 
cautiously  along  the  street.  I  returned  the  same  route,  the  fire  proving  to  be  a 
bonfire,  and  noticed  also  on  my  return  that  it  was  dark  and  cloudy. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  get  back  ? 

A.  I  could  not  state  the  hour ;  it  was  after  10  o'clock.  On  my  return  to  my 
office,  after  cleansing  my  hands  and  washing  myself  up,  an  officer  of  the  War 
Department  was  in  front,  who  said  I  was  sent  for,  and  directed  me  to  have  the 
engines  and  apparatus  in  readiness  at  a  moment's  notice.  They  were  afraid 
that  arson  would  be  perpetrated.  He  told  me  he  was  directed  at  the  War  De- 
partment to  give  these  orders.  I  reported  at  the  War  Department,  but  the 
guards  would  not  allow  me  to  enter  the  building. 

Q.  At  what  hour  was  that  ? 

A.  It  was  near  11  o'clock.  I  remained  about  the  office  on  Pennsylvania 
avenue,  between  that  and  the  War  Department,  waiting  for  further  orders  until 
nearly  2  o'clock  the  next  morning. 

Q.  You  received  some  direction,  did  you,  at  your  office,  after  you  returned 
home,  which  led  you  to  go  on  down  towards  the  War  Department  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  hour  was  that  relative  to  the  time  you  heard  of  the  assassination 
of  the  President? 

A.  I  heard  it  from  an  officer  who  came  to  give  me  the  orders. 

Q.  And  in  conformity  with  these  instructions  you  went  out  ? 

A.  I  went  out  to  report  to  the  department,  to  General  Hardie. 

Q.  What  was  the  condition  of  the  night  when  you  went  down  to  report  to 
the  War  Department  ? 

A.  It  was  dai"k. 
~^Q.  Did  you  see  any  one  passing,  while  you  were  down  there,  at  any  time — 
any  horses,  troops,  or  anything  else  ? 

A.  A  squadron  of  cavalry  passed  me  when  I  was  near  Eighteenth  street, 
going  fast  down  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  Can  you  fix  approximately  what  time  of  the  night  that  was  ? 

A.  It  was  close  to  11  o'clock.     I  could  not  say  the  exact  hour. 

Q.  Tell  us,  as  near  as  you  can,  anything  that  occurred  showing  how  dense 
the  darkness  was — whether  you  could  recognize  the  color  of  the  horses. 

A.  I  could  not  recognize  the  color  of  the  horses.  The  apparatus  that  night 
came  near  running  into  a  wagon  while  passing  to  the  fire  up  New  York  avenue. 
The  driver  told  me  it  was  so  dark  that  they  came  near  driving  into  a  wagon. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  apparatus  do  you  allude  to  ? 

A.  The  government  fire-engines. 

Q.  Was  there  any  light  on  it  ? 

A.  They  have  two  lights,  one  on  each  side — or  had  then. 

Q.  Those  lights  gave  some  light,  did  they  not  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  585 

A.  On  the  side  they  did,  but  not  before  the  driver. 

Q.  Did  you  look  to  see  whether  there  was  a  nearly  full  moon  up  an  hour 
high  at  11  o'clock  ? 

A.  In  going  to  the  fire  there  was  no  moon  up. 

Q,.  No  moon  up  at  1 1  o'clock  ? 

A.  This  was  previous  to  that  time. 

Q.  At  what  time  was  it  that  there  was  no  moon  up  ? 

A.  About  half  past  9  o'clock,  when  I  went  to  the  fire. 

Q.  And  do  you  know  at  what  time  the  full  moon  rose  that  night  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  that  you  could  see  no  moon,  although  you 
looked  at  the  heavens  ? 

A.  I  could  not ;  the  heavens  were  obscured  by  clouds. 

A.  C.  KiESECKER — residence  Washington,  corner  Sixth  and  H  streets — sworn 
and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  "Where  did  you  reside  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  At  the  same  place  I  do  now. 

Q.  "What  house  is  the  next  house  to  yours  on  H  street  west  ? 

A.  Five  hundred  and  forty-one,  (541.) 

Q.  iJid  you  know  whose  house  it  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  how  your  house  fronts,  and  how  near  the  front  of  it  is 
to  541  ? 

A.  My  house  at  that  time  fronted  on  Sixth  street,  towards  the  east ;  and  the 
house  run  back  towards  the  west  along  H  street  for  75  feet,  I  think.  Since 
then  I  have  been  building  and  have  changed  the  front  to  H  street. 

Q.  I  speak  of  that  time.  You  say  it  run  back  from  Sixth  street  75  feet. 
How  near  did  the  end  of  the  house,  at  a  distance  of  75  feet  from  Sixth  street, 
come  to  the  house  541  ? 

A.  I  suppose  about  nine  feet.  There  was  a  three-foot  alley  and  about 
six  feet  between  that  and  the  rear  of  the  house. 

Q.  Then  the  front  of  that  house  on  Sixth  street  was  about  84  feet  from  541  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  how  the  steps  of  your  house  were  arranged. 

A.  The  steps  of  my  house  ran  from  the  landing  up  to  the  second  story  front. 

Q.  Did  they  run  towards  H  street  ? 

A.  Towards  II  street,  descending  to  12  or  15  inches  of  the  building  line  on 
H  street. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  of  the  President's  assassination  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  "Where  were  you  that  night  1 

A.  I  was  at  my  place  of  business  until  about  half-past  nine  or  fifteen  minutes 
of  ten  o'clock,  the  usual  time  of  closing. 

Q.  "Where  did  you  go  then  1 

A.  I  went  home  to  my  place  of  residence. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  sat  from  about  ten  till  very  nearly  eleven  before  my  door,  smoking. 

Q.  Whereabouts  before  the  door  1 

A.  On  the  lower  step  most  of  the  time,  and  partly  walking  on  the  pavement. 
I  do  not  know  whether  I  was  sitting  all  that  time  or  not.     I  might  have  been 

38 


586  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

on  the  pavement  walking  backwards  and  forwards,  most  of  tte  time  sitting  on 
the  lower  step. 

Q.  When  you  were  sitting,  how  near  to  the  line  of  H  street  were  you  ? 

A.  I  was  sitting  on  the  lower  step.    It  was  not  more  than  fifteen  inches  from 
the  corner  of  the  bnildiug. 

Q.  Was  that  a  quiet  neighborhood  at  that  hour  of  the  night,  and  was  it  quiet 
that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  after  ten  o'clock  it  is  generally  quiet. 

Q,  What  kind  of  a  night  was  it  as  to  light  or  darkness  1 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  clouded  over.     It  was  pretty  dark. 

Q.  While  you  were  sitting  there  did  you  hear  any  conversation  occur  between 
parties  on  the  street  and  parties  in  541,  speaking  from  the  window  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  in  my  hearing. 

Q.  Were  you  near  enough  to  hear  an  ordinary  tone  of  voice,  such  as  would 
be  addressed  to  a  person  in  a  window,  from  the  street  ? 

A.  I  think  I  was. 

Q.  Had  there  been  a  conversation  there  in  the  ordinary  tone  of  voice,  do  you 
think  it  likely  you  would  have  heard  it? 

A.  I  think  I  would,  at  that  distance,  and  at  that  time  of  night. 

Q.  It  was  very  quiet,  I  understand  you.  How  far  could  you  see  a  man  that 
night — did  you  observe  ? 

A.  I  think  on  that  side  of  the  street,  I  could  see  a  man  from  forty  to  fifty 
feet,  but  could  not  tell  who  he  was ;  that  is,  it  was  too  dark  to  tell  who  the 
person  was. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  more  about  this  case? 
A.  No,  sir ;  that  is  all  I  know. 

Q.  Let  us  see  if  you  do  not  know  something  more.  Did  you  go  to  bed  that 
night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  of  the  murder  of  the  President  that  night? 
A.  Not  until  the  next  morning  when  I  got  to  my  store. 
Q.  You  went  to  bed  in  pretty  good  season,  did  you? 
A.  Within  a  few  minutes  of  eleven. 

Q.  Was  there  not  a  good  deal  of  noise  and  excitement  on  the  street  before 
eleven  o'clock  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  remarked  the  next  morning  that  I  had  been  sitting  on  my 
steps,  and  never  heard  of  it  until  my  clerk  told  me  at  the  store. 

^    If  there  had  been  a  great  deal  of  excitement  there  on  the  streets  about 
this  fact,  you  would  have  heard  something  of  it,  would  you  not  ? 
A.  I  would. 

Q.  Bnt  you  infer  that  there  was  not,  and  that  they  kept  pretty  still  about  the 
assassination  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  it. 
Q.  They  kept  it  entirely  from  you  1 

A.  I  did  not  hear  anything  until  I  was  at  the  store  next  morning. 
Q.  Did  you  look  at  the  clock  when  you  went  to  bed? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  not  you  a  little  surprised  the  next  morning  that  you  had  not  beard 
of  it  the  night  before? 
A.  I  was  surprised  at  it. 

Q.  H  street  runs  this  way,  (illustrating  with  a  book,)  and  Sixth  street  this. 
This  was  the  front  of  your  house.     Now  where  were  you  sitting? 

A.  Twelve  or  fifteen  inches  lower  down  Sixth  street,  on  the  first  step. 
Q.  Were  you  there  all  the  time  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT.  587 

A.  From  ten  until  a  few  minutes  of  eleven. 

Q.  When  you  were  smoking,  was  anybody  with  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  person  pass? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell.     I  paid  no  attention  to  who  passed. 

Q.  Yours  is  a  brick  house  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  sitting  in  front  of  the  house  on  Sixth  street.  From  where 
you  were  sitting  to  the  rear  of  the  lot  was  seventy -five  feet.  Then  between 
that  and  .541  is  an  alley  three  feet  and  a  brick  wall  between  the  house  and  the 
alley,  as  I  understand  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  were  so  situated  that  if  there  had  been  an  ordinary  CQnversation 
in  that  house  you  could  have  heard  it  1 

A.  Not  ordinary  conversation.  I  think  I  could  if  anybody  had  been  talking 
out  of  the  window  to  another  person  in  the  street. 

Q.  And  you  think  they  could  not  do  that  without  your  hearing  them  1 

A.  I  think  I  should  have  heard  if  they  had  been  talking. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  hear  a  thing? 

A.  No,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  The  counsel  says  you  were  sitting  in  front.  As  I  understand  you,  you 
were  sitting  on  the  steps  of  your  house  ? 

A.  On  the  first  step  near  the  corner.  The  steps  cross  nearly  the  whole 
house  and  enter  the  second  story,  going  down,  as  I  have  said,  within  twelve 
inches  of  the  corner  towards  H  street. 

Bv  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  were  sitting  on  the  bottom  step  with  your  face  towards  the  corner 
and  your  feet  on  the  pavement  ? 

A.  Yes,  with  my  feet  on  the  pavement. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  you  were  leaning  back  or  sitting  forward  ?  , 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  not  sitting  where  you  could  look  up  H  street  ? 

A.  If  I  had  been  leaning  forward,  I  could.  I  do  not  think  a  person  from 
where  I  was  sitting  could  conveniently  look  up  H  street,  because  I  usually  sit 
in  a  straight  position.  I  might  during  that  time  have  been  standing  out  on  the 
sidewalk  ;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  But  I  understand  you  to  say  you  were  sitting  a  great  part  of  the  time, 
although  you  may  have  got  up  and  walked  about. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  How  do  you  rec6llect  about  the  time  of  your  going  to  bed  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Kiesecker  called  me  and  said  it  was  time  to  go  to  bed  ;  that  it  was 
ten  minutes  to  eleven  o'clock.  She  was  sitting  up  in  the  room  reading.  I  told 
her  to  let  me  finish  my  cigar  first. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPONT  : 

Q.  How  many  cigars  did  you  finish  ? 

A.  One. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  smoke  that  cigar  ? 

A.  I  sometimes  smoke  a  cigar  in  an  hour,  sometimes  in  half  an  hour. 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  smoke  that  cigar  ? 


588  TRIAL-   OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  -^vent  out  there  at  10  o'clock,  and  I  suppose  I  smoked  it  until  nearly 
11  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  you  walk  about  when  you  were  smoking  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  ;  I  may  have  done  so. 

Q.  Did  you  sit  on  that  front  step  all  the  time  ? 

A.  I  must  have  done  so  most  of  the  time.     I  may  have  been  partly  walking. ' 

Q.  It  was  on  the  front  step,  was  it,  on  Sixth  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  That  is  all. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  With  your  face  towards  H  street  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  could  not  sit  backwards. 
Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  all. 

James  Lamb  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  State  your  profession. 

A.  Scenic  artist  or  scene  painter. 

Q.  Were  you  in  any  manner  connected  with  Ford's  theatre  in  the  month  o 
April,  1865  1 

A.  I  was  engaged  there  in  my  profession. 

Q.  In  Washington,  on  Tenth  street  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  14th  of  April,  the  day  on  which  the  President  was 
assassinated  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  where  you  were  occupied  during  a  gi-eat  part  of  that 
day  1  State  at  what  time  you  came  to,  and  what  time  you  left  the  theatre. 

A.  1  was  engaged  in  the  p;iinting-room  of  the  theatre  from  nine  o'clock  that 
morning  uxatil  six  or  a  little  after  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day. 

Q.  Describe  to  the  jury  the  situation  of  the  painting  room. 

A.  It  occupies  a  position  in  the  rear  of  the  theatre,  facing  the  rear  wall,  at  an 
elevation  of  about  thirty-six  or  thirty-seven  feet  from  the  stage,  commanding  an 
entire  view  of  the  stage,  right  and  left. 

Q.  State  whether  the  side  next  to  the  stage  is  open  or  not. 

A.  It  is  open.  There  is  a  mere  railing  at  the  back,  so  that  a  man  has  a  full 
view  of  the  stage  and  of  the  auditorium ;  not  of  the  auditorium  entirely ;  you 
can  see  into  the  orchestra,  and  into  a  portion  of  the  parquette. 

Q.  Who  was  assisting  you  in  your  painting  room  that  day  1 

A.  I  had  a  black  boy  who  was  employed  in  grinding  colors  and  in  raising 
the  paint  frame  up  and  down,  and  such  work  as  I  required  him  to  do. 

Q.  What  were  the  other  duties  of  that  black  bey,  when  not  engaged  by  you? 

A.  He  was  with  me  during  the  day.  He  was  occupied  in  tlie  evening  in 
assisting  another  boy  about  his  size  in  raising  and  lowering  the  curtain. 

Q.  State  whether  one  person  could  raise  and  loAver  that  curtain,  or  whether  it 
required  more  force  than  one. 

A.  I  have  never  seen  one  person  raise  or  lower  it — always  two.  Two  were 
employed  especially  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  State  whether,  from  that  position,  you  could  see  when  the  rehearsal  was 
going  on. 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  had  a  full  view  commanding  the  stage. 

Q.  On  the  14th  of  April  was  there  any  rehearsal  ? 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  the  time  ? 

A.  It  commenced  at  about  ton  o'clock.  The  usual  time  of  commencement  of 
rehearsals  was  about  ten  o'clock. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT.  589 

Q.  How  long  did  it  continue  ? 

A.  Until  two,  or  half  past ;  somewhere  about  that  time. 
Q.  During  that  time  was  that  curtain  up  or  down  ? 
A.  Up  the  whole  time,  most  decidedly. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepo.\t  : 

Q.  What  countryman  are  you  ? 

A.  I  was  born  in  England.  I  have  been  in  this  country  some  twenty-seven 
or  twenty-eight  years. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  part  in  this  struggle  which  we  have  been  through  1 

A.  No  part  whatever. 

Q.  Did  you  express  yourself  on  one  side  or  the  other? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick,  withdrawn,  and  put  in  this  form  : 

Q.  Did  you  express  any  sympathy  on  the  rebel  side  in  the  late  war  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick  as  having  no  pertinency  to  this  issue. 
This  was  not  a  trial  for  treason. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  insisted  upon  the  question  as  proper,  on  a  cross-examina- 
tion, for  the  purpose  of  disclosing  the  feelings  and  partialities  of  the  witness. 

The  Court  decided  that  the  question  might  be  put  and  that  the  witness  might 
answer  or  not,  as  he  saw  proper,  there  being,  in  his  judgment,  no  difference 
between  the  question  put  and  the  question  on  a  ruling  which  had  already  been 
made,  as  to  whether  the  witness  had  taken  sides  in  the  late  war. 

Mr.  Bradley  desired  an  exception  to  this  ruling  to  be  noted. 

The  witness  was  directed  to  answer  the  question. 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  you  felt  it  l 

A.  I  have  felt  sympathy  on  occasions  when  I  have  seen  men  on  either  side 
butchered. 

Q.  You  feel  it  now  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  feel  it  now,  on  both  sides.     I  am  a  peace  man. 

Q.  Your  peace  feelings,  however,  rather  ran  against  the  North  at  that  time? 

A.  No,  sir ;  by  no  means. 

Q.  Did  your  peace  feelings  run  in  favor  of  putting  down  the  rebellion  by 
arms  ? 

A.  They  did  not. 

Q.  You  thought  it  ought  not  to  have  been  done  ? 

A.  I  did  think  so. 

Q.  You  thought  the  rebels  ought  to  have  had  their  own  way  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  thought  the  thing  could  have  been  arranged  differently  alto- 
gether. 

Q.  You  say  you  thought  the  rebellion  ought  not  to  have  been  put  down  by 
arms  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  dinner  on  the  14th  of  April  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  dine  when  I  am  at  work. 

Q.  Did  you  take  anything  to  eat  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  as  I  did ;  I  think  it  is  very  unlikely  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  take  anything  to  drink  ? 

A.  That  I  may  have  done. 

Q.  You  do  that  sometimes  ? 

A.  I  do  that  sometimes. 

Q.  Did  you  go  out  of  the  theatre  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  not  until  I  left  after  six  o'clock  to  go  home. 

Q.  You  came  there  about  nine  o'clock  and  left  after  six.  Were  you  there 
during  the  whole  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  there,  in  that  room. 


590  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Where  is  that  room  ? 

A.  The  highest  floor  of  the  theatre — away  from  everybody. 

Q.  Back  of  the  stage  ? 

A.  Back  of  the  stage,  very  high  up. 

Q.  "What  were  you  doing  that  day  ? 

A.  Painting. 

Q.  What  were  you  painting  ? 

A.  A  scene  in  Enoch  Arden,  a  piece  Mr.  Ford  contemplated  bringing  out.    It 
was  left  undone  in  consequence  of  what  occurred. 

Q.  Was  it  a  thing  that  occupied  your  mind  1 

A.  Entirely. 

Q.  You  were  greatly  absorbed  in  that  scene  from  Enoch  Arden,  were  you  not  ? 

A.  Well,  I  had  got  the  thing  into  my  mind,  and  was  mechanically  working 
on  it. 

Q.  Then  it  did  not  absorb  your  mind  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  it  did. 

Q.  Then  it  did  ? 

A.  It  did  on  some  occasions,  and  on  others  it  did  not. 

Q.  On  the  whole,  did  it  or  did  it  not  absorb  your  mind  wholly  1 

A.  About  the  same  as  usual. 

Q.  How  was  it?  I  ask  you  whether  it  absorbed  your  mind? 

A.  Not  to  the  exclusion  of  other  matters. 

Q.  Do  you  understand  the  meaning  of  the  question  1 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Can  you  answer  it  ? 

A.  Not  entirely. 

Q.  Then  it  did  not  much  ? 

A.  Some  portions  of  the  painting  required  more  attention  and  more  study  than 
others. 

Q.  Did  you  give  it  attention  ? 

A.  On  some  portions  of  it  I  did.  The  mechanical  portion,  you  or  any  other 
inexpert  could  have  done  as  well  as  I. 

Q.  But  dvu'ing  that  portion  of  it  you  gave  your  attention  to  it,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  While  I  was  painting  particular  portions  of  it  I  gave  attention  to  it. 

Q.  Did  you  do  your  work  well  ? 

A.  I  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Does  it  require  attention  to  do  it  well  ? 

A.  Sometimes  not  very  great  attention.  You  see  I  have  been  employed  in 
this  thing  for  a  number  of  years,  and  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  form  painting  some 
things. 

Q.  But  in  painting  this  it  was  new,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  Rather  new. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  tell  me  whether  it  did  occupy  your  mind  or  did  not  occupy 
it,  either  way  ? 

A.  If  you  had  been  reading  a  newspaper  there  I  could  have  heard  every 
word,  probably,  you  read. 

Q.  Do  not  you  think  you  might  have  stopped  to  ask  me  to  read  over  some 
jDassage  ?     Would  not  that  have  been  natural  ? 

A.  Well,  if  I  had  not  heard  it  it  would. 

Q.  Which  way  was  your  scene  placed  ? 

A.  The  scene  was  placed  against  the  wall,  and  its  face  towards  me. 

Q.  Which  wall  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  The  rear  wall  of  the  theatre. 

Q.  Could  you  see  to  paint  any  portion  of  that  without  looking  at  it  ? 

A.  I  sometimes  paint  without  looking  at  it. 


1 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  591 

Q.  Not  all  the  time.  Calling  that  the  rear  of  the  theatre,  (illustrating,) 
you  stood  with  your  back  this  way,  did  you  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Your  eye  was  directed  to  the  rear  of  the  theatre  on  the  canvas  you  were 
painting  on  that  wall  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  canvas  was  there  and  was  raised  up  and  down  in  front  of  me. 

Q.  You  did  not  paint  that  without  looking  at  it  ? 

A.  Occasionally  I  could.  I  have  done  painting  running  it  along,  and  at  thc^ 
same  time  looked  at  something  probably  going  on. 

Q.  Was  that  your  general  style  of  painting  ? 

A.  Not  my  general  style ;  an  exception  to  my  general  rule. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  In  regard  to  your  sympathies,  did  your  sympathies  lead  you  to  wish  th^ 
overthrow  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  I 

A.  Not  by  any  means. 

Q.  In  regard  to  your  position  to  that  painting,  was  it  possible  for  that  curtain 
to  have  been  drawn  up  and  you  not  know  it  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  made  too  much  noise ;  and  another  thing,  the  boy  who  raised 
it  was  at  all  times  in  my  presence,  waiting  on  me.  He  could  not  have  raised  it 
without  my  knowing  it. 

Q.  When  the  curtain  was  down  was  not  the  auditorium  of  the  theatre  quite 
dark  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  it  get  its  light  ? 

A.  The  light  was  received  from  the  windows  in  the  auditorium. 

Q.  Were  the  windows  open  in  the  auditorium  ? 

A.  Generally ;  yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  your  room  if  the  curtain  had  been 
down  ? 

A.  It  would  not  have  inconvenienced  me  at  all.  I  received  my  light  from 
the  sky-light  in  the  ceiling. 

Q.  That  curtain  could  not  have  been  let  down  without  your  knowing  it  1 

A.  I  am  certain  of  it.  It  would  have  drawn  my  attention  immediately.  I 
was  there  quiet,  and  any  little  footstep  would  have  attracted  my  attention  when 
painting. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  taking  anything  to  drink  but  a  glass  of  beer  sent  up  to 
you  there  1 

A.  It  is  very  likely  I  did.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection.  My  usual  way 
of  sustaining  myself  while  there  was  by  taking  a  little  crust  of  bread  or  some- 
thing, and  sending  out  for  a  glass  of  ale,  and  eating  that.  I  got  very  dirty  in 
painting,  and  did  not  care  to  go  out,  and  I  generally  took  my  dinner,  or  lunch, 
or  whatever  you  call  it,  in  my  paint  room. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  tell  us  now  it  was  so  still  that  the  lea.<t  noise  would  have  attracted 
your  attention  ? 

A.  On  ordinary  occasions. 

Q.  On  this  occasion  ? 

A.  No;  I  do  not  think  it  was.     There  was  a  rehearsal  going  on. 

Q.  Then  what  you  say  did  not  apply  to  this  occasion  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  Then  it  had  better  never  have  been  said.  I  understand  you  that  this  re- 
hearsal made  some  noise  ? 

A.  It  was  the  usual  noise.  I  would  have  been  like  a  miller  hearing  the  drum- 
wheel.     Anything  out  of  the  ordinary  would  have  attracted  my  attention. 


592  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Then  the  rehearsal  was  in  a  monotone  like  a  drum  wheel  ? 

A.  All  in  one  tone.     Anything  like  the  lowering  of  the  curtain  would  have 
attracted  my  attention. 

Q.  What  was  the  piece  they  were  rehearsing  ? 

A.  The  American  Cousin. 

Q.  In  that  there  is  some  little  movement  and  noise,  is  there  not  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Considerable,  is  there  not  ? 

A,  Nothing  very  particular. 

Q.  Is  there  not  just  as  much  as  if  it  was  being  exhibited  ? 

A.  No ;  they  walk  very  quietly  on  and  very  quietly  off. 

Q.  They  do  not  go  through  any  of  those  movements  they  do  while  playing  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  a  rehearsal  is  not  very  much  like  an  exhibition  ? 

A.  Not  at  all.     You  would  not  recognize  it  as  the  same. 

Q.  Still  and  silent,  is  it  1 

A.  Quiet. 

Q.  Now  won't  you  tell  us  about  the  curtain  ?  Did  you  look  at  it  that  day  ? 
,  A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  which  curtain  it  was  1 

A.  The  curtain  I  presume  to  be  the  drop  curtain. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  it,  whether  it  was  up  or  down,  that  day  ? 

A.  I  am  sure  the  green  curtain  could  not  have  been  lowered.  It  goes  down 
with  a  rattle — makes  more  noise  than  the  other. 

Q.  The  drop  curtain  has  pictures  on  it,  has  it  not,  and  is  tied  up  partly  drop  1 

A.  It  was  not  partly  drop  ;  it  was  away  up. 

Q.  How  do  you  know;  did  you  examine? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  thought  on  that  subject  until  now  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Never  until  this  trial  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  all  that  time  you  never  had  your  attention  called  to  the  subject  of 
the  curtain  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  tell  us  that  if  one  curtain  was  down,  it  would  not  be  dark  in  the 
boxes  ? 

A.  It  would  not  interfere  with  the  light  of  the  boxes. 

JQ.  Tlien  the  boxes  would  be  light  if  the  curtain  was  down  on  the  stage  ? 

A.  The  boxes  receive  their  light,  if  any,  from  the  windows  of  the  auditorium. 

Q.  They  do  not  receive  any  from  the  stage  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  the  curtain  being  down  did  not  darken  the  boxes  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  boxes  were  always  dark.     The  curtain  was  up. 

Q.  But  you  tell  us  they  were  lighted  from  the  windows  ? 

A.  If  they  were  lighted  at  all,  it  was  from  the  windows. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Could  they  have  gone  through  the  rehearsal  with  the  curtain  down? 
Would  not  the  curtain  being  down  have  interfered  with  the  rehearsal  ? 

A.  It  woxild  have  come  down  on  the  very  spot  where  they  had  all  their  re- 
hearsal. The  rehearsals  are  generally  carried  on  from  the  foot-lights  back  to 
the  second  entrance. 

Q.  Did  not  the  curtain  come  down  into  the  first  entrance  ? 

A.  It  comes  down  into  the  tormentor  entrance.  You  may  call  it  the  first 
entrance. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  593 

Charles  M.  Skippox,  lieutenant  of  police,  "WasLingtou  city,  sworn  and 
examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  In  1S65  were  you  connected  witli  the  police? 

A.  I  was  then  sergeant  of  police. 

Q.  What  was  your  district  in  the  spring  of  1865  ? 

A.  It  consisted  of  the  third  ward,  sixth  precinct. 

Q,  Did  it  embrace  the  square  on  which  Ford's  theatre  stood  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  if  there  was  any  oyster-house  on  the  south  side  of  that  square,  on 
E  street,  between  Ninth  and  Tenth. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  oyster-house,  unless  Miller's  saloon  may  be  called  one,  on 
the  south  side  of  F  street,  on  the  square  the  theatre  was  on  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  oyster-saloon  being  there,  with  the  exception 
of  an  eating  saloon  of  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Gilbert. 

Q.  That  was  entered  up  a  flight  of  stairs  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  it  was  an  eating  saloon,  not  an  oyster  saloon  ] 

A.  He  may  have  served  up  oysters.     I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Was  there  any  oyster  saloon  on  that  side  of  the  square  which  opened  level 
with  the  street  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Cross-examined  by  the  Assistant  District  Attorney: 
Q.  Where  was  the  Tontine  House  ? 
A.  On  D  street,  between  Ninth  and  Tenth. 

William  Boss,  residence  Washington,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  this  city? 

A.  All  my  life. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  ]jee  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  it  questioned  until  after  he  testified  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Then  that  is  the  end  of  the  matter. 

Q.  Did  John  Lee  ever  say  to  you  that  he  did  not  know  John  H.  Surratt  ? 

(Question  answered  by  witness,  but  answer  subsequently  stricken  out  by  direc- 
tion of  the  court. 

The  district  attorney  objected  to  the  question  on  the  ground  'hat  the  witness, 
Lee,  had  never  been  asked  relative  to  any  such  conversation  Avith  this  witness. 

Objection  sustained  by  the  court.  Such  a  question  could  not  be  asked  unless 
the  witness  whose  testimony  he  was  called  to  impeach  had  had  an  opportunity 
of  answering  in  reference  to  the  subject,  the  time,  place,  person,  and  circum- 
stances to  be  specified  to  the  witness  it  is  intended  to  impeach.) 

Mr.  Merrick.  Then  your  honor  orders  the  answer  to  be  stricken  out  ? 

The  Court  replied  in  the  affirmative. 

Mr.  Merrick  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  to  be  noted. 

Mr.  Bradley  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  witness,  John  Lee,  some  days 
ago,  was  called  to  the  stand  for  the  purpose  of  further  cross-examination  in  relation 
to  the  contradictory  statements  made  by  him  which  had  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  defence  after  his  testimony  was  concluded.  He  now  asked  that  Lee  might 
be  recalled  for  the  purpose  of  patting  the  proper  questions  to  him  in  order  to  lay 
the  ground  for  his  contradiction. 


594  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    II.    SURRATT. 

Mr.  PiERRKPONT  resisted  the  motion.  This  witness  admitted  that  although 
he  had  lived  here  all  his  life  he  had  never  heard  the  reputation  of  John  Lee  called 
in  question  until  since  his  testimony  here.  It  was  the  right  of  the  witness,  as 
the  court  had  stated,  before  any  question  could  be  asked  tending  to  contradict 
him,  that  his  attention  should  have  been  drawn  to  the  time  and  place,  and  an 
opportunity  afforded  him  to  explain  the  circumstances. 

Mr.  Bradlby  remarked  that  when  application  was  made  on  the  former  occa- 
sion for  the  recall  of  Lee,  the  court  decided  that  was  not  the  proper  time  to  re- 
call him.  Circumstances  had  now  arisen  making  it  proper  to  address  a  new  ap- 
plication to  the  discretion  of  the  court  for  his  recall,  in  order  to  lay  the  proper 
foundation  for  showing  that  he  had  made  directly  contradictory  statements.  He 
was  ready,  in  support  of  his  application,  to  present  the  affidavits  of  half  a  dozen 
persons  stating  the  conti'adictions  he  expected  to  show. 

The  Court  announced  his  decision  overruling  the  motion.  He  could  not  see 
that  there  was  any  exercise  of  discretion  in  the  matter,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
great  trouble  would  arise  out  of  it  if  granted.  If  the  doors  are  opened  in  this 
instance,  they  must  be  thrown  wide  open  in  every  case.  If  the  witness  Lee 
was  to  be  recalled  to  lay  the  foundation  for  his  contradiction,  this  witness  might 
also  be  recalled  for  the  same  purpose,  and  he  did  not  see  where  this  case  was  to 
end.  With  such  a  practice  permitted,  unless  a  man  was  to  live  a  hundred  or  a 
thousand  years,  a  case  of  this  magnitude  would  never  be  ended. 

The  Court  stated  that  he  had  received  a  note  from  James  R.  Ford,  desiring 
to  be  recalled  for  the  purpose  of  explanation,  and  directed  that  an  opportunity 
be  now  afforded  for  that  purpose. 

James  R.  Ford  then  appeared  upon  the  stand,  and  made  the  following  state- 
ment :  I  wish  to  say  that  I  was  always  a  thoroughly  loyal  man ;  was  always  ou 
the  side  of  the  government. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  refused  to  state  that  befere,  did  you  not  1 

A.  I  did  not  see  what  bearing  it  had  on  this  case. 

Q.  Tijat  was  the  reason  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  always  been  in  sympathy  with  the  North  against  the  South  during 
the  war  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  have  you  lived  ? 

A.  In  Baltimore,  and  in  Washington  a  part  of  the  time  since  the  war. 

Q.  You  never  expressed  any  sympathy  towards  the  South,  but  always  in  favor 
of  the  North  and  against  the  South  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  tell  it  just  now. 

Mr.  Brapley  said  he  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  whether  he  and  his  brother 
had  not  shown  their  sympathy  by  the  great  benefits  they  had  conferred  on  the 
United  States? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  as  not  proper.     Objection  sustained. 

David  H.  Bates  recalled  as  a  witness  for  the  defence,  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Have  you  any  telegram  addressed  to  Jacob  W.  Vanderpool  from  any 
authority  in  Washington  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  one,  but  not  addressed  to  Jacob  W.  Vanderpool. 
(Telegram  produced  and  exhibited  to  counsel  ou  both  sides  and  to  the  court.) 
Mr.  Pierrepont  objected  to  its  being  received  in  evidence. 
Mr.  Merrick  said  the  court  would  recollect  that  Vanderpool  testified  that 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    II.    SURRATT.  595 

he  came  here  of  his  own  accord,  without  any  suggestion  or  summons  from  any- 
body. 

The  Assistant  District  Attorney  replied  that  the  witness  did  not  state 
that  he  came  here  without  suggestion. 

Mr.  Mkrrick  read  from  the  testimony  of  the  witness.  Yanderpool  the  state- 
ment made  by  him. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  that  statement  Avas  correct,  that  the  witness  had  not 
been  summoned.  More  than  half  a  dozen  witnesses  of  whom  they  had  never 
heard  had  come  on  and  presented  themselves  to  the  district  attorney  of  their  own 
motion,  had  gone  back,  and  had  subsequently  been  telegraphed  for.  It  Avas  true  in 
respect  to  them  as  in  respect  to  this  witness,  that  tliey  came  here  without  summons. 

The  Court  inquired  whether  any  question  had  been  put  to  the  witness  Van- 
derpool,  calling  his  attention  to  the  district  attorney,  or  assistant  district  attor- 
ney, or  anybody  else,  asking  him  whether  he  received  any  notice  from  him  to 
go;  otherwise  he  could  not  be  contradicted  in  this  way, 

Mr.  Merrick  said  the  question  was  asked  witness  whether  he  came  without 
a  summons,  and  that  the  answer  was,  "  Without  a  summons." 

The  Court  said  it  seemed  that  he  did  come  without  summons. 

Mr.  Merrick  replied  that  he  came  without  subpoena,  but  not  without  summons, 
as  the  telegram  would  show. 

The  Court  said  there  would  be  no  fairness  in  contradicting  the  witness  in 
that  way.  The  word  "summons"  was  a  technical  word,  and  tlie  Avitness,  being 
a  laAvyer,  itnderstood  what  it  meant.  The  question  was  not  asked  him  whether 
he  had  received  any  telegram  from  the  district  attorney  or  from  anybody.  The 
telegram  referred  to  could  not  be  received  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Merrick  desired  an  exception  to  the  ruling  of  the  court  to  be  noted. 

The  court  then  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 


afternoon  session. 

Sa.muel  W.  Owens  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  "Where  do  you  reside? 

A.  No.  212  Pennsylvavia  avenue. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  this  city  ? 

A.  About  thirty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  a  person  by  the  name  of  John  Lee  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  man  of  that  name  who  was  examined  as  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  presume  he  is  the  same  man. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  many  people  speak  of  it. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  IJefore  the  trial? 

Mr.  Merrick.  Before  the  trial  or  after  it,  either  ? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  No,  sir;  only  before? 

Witness.  I  have  heard  him  spoken  of  both  before  and  since. 

Q.  What  do  people  say  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  should  think  from  his  reputation  that  he  was  not  a  truthful  man. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation  in  this  respect,  would  you  believe  him  on  his 
oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would.  I  think  if  he  was  interested  in  a  case,  that  it 
would  be  very  doubtful  Avhether  he  would  tell  the  truth.  I  should  hate  to  have 
to  take  his  oath  myself. 


596  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepo.nt: 

Q.  Do  yon  know  Mr.  Lee? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Personally] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  one  who  testified  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  presume  it  is  the  same  man.     He  was  a  detective  at  one  time, 
and  also  a  police  magistrate. 

Q.  In  Washington  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  has  he  lived  in  Washington  ? 

A.  When  I  returned  from  the  army  1  found  Mr.  Lee  here.     I  never  saw  him 
before  that  time. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  lived  here  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  was  a  detective  when  I  first  knew  him. 

Q.  When  was  he  a  police  magistrate  ? 

A.  He  was  a  police  magistrate  two  years  last  June. 

Q,  Won't  you  tell  the  jury  who  you  heard  say  before  this  trial  that  they 
would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath  1 

A.  No,  sir.     I  could  not,  because  I  have  heard  so  many  speak  of  it. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  one  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  could. 

Q.  You  think  that  he  could  tell  the  truth  under  oath  1 

A.  He  might  do  so,  if  he  had  no  object  the  other  way. 

Q.  Do  you  tell  these  gentlemen  that  you  would  not  believe  him  testify  ing 
here  under  oath  ? 

A.  I  certainly  would  not  take  his  oath. 

Q.  Do  you  tell  these  gentlemen  that  you  would  not  believe  him  under  oath  1 
That  is  the  question  I  put.     You  will  please  answer  that. 

A.  I  shall  answer  the  question  to  suit  myself. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Perhaps  you  won't.  You  may  have  to  answer  it  as  the 
court  directs. 

Witness.  That  may  be,  but  I  shall  not  do  anything  that  will  commit  myself. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Certainly  not.  We  do  not  want  you  to  do  anything  to 
commit  yourself. 

Q.  Do  you  say  to  the  jury  that  you  would  not  believe  him  under  oath  ? 

A.  If  I  was  a  juror  I  would  not  take  his  oath. 
^  Q.  You  say  you  would  not  believe  him  under  oath  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  who,  before  the  trial,  you  have  heard  say  they  would  not 
believe  him  under  oath  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  cannot  tell. 

Q.  You  don't  know  of  any  one  ? 

A.  That  is;  I  could  not  name  any  one.  I  know  Mr.  Lee ;  have  met  him 
often,  and  in  various  companies. 

Q.  Have  you  been  at  all  intimate  with  him  ? 

A.  I  have  met  him  every  day  for  a  year  or  two,  when  he  was  around  in  the 
neigrhborhood  where  I  resided. 

Q.  You  cannot  give  us  the  name  of  a  man  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  cannot. 

My.  Merrick.  I  understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Owens,  that  you  cannot  give  the 
name  of  any  person  who  spoke  thus,  but  that  what  you  have  stated  is  what 
was  generally  said  of  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  597 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  But  you  cannot  now  tell  us  the  name  of  one  man  who 
said  it  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  know  that  I  can. 

T.  G.  Clayton  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  '( 

A.  In  Washington,  on  Massachusetts  avenue,  between  Fourth  and  Fifth 
streets. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  this  city  ? 

A.  At  the  present  time  I  have  resided  in  the  city  since  1854. 

Q.  What  is  your  present  occupation  1 

A.  During  the  winter  and  this  last  spring  I  have  been  connected  with  my 
son  in  the  patent  business.  Prior  to  that  I  had  for  some  time  been  acting  as 
justice  of  the  peace  in  the  second  ward. 

Q.  For  how  many  years  were  you  justice  of  the  peace  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  on  the  14tli  of  February,  1862,  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
continued  in  that  office,  with  slight  intermission  when  my  commission  run  out, 
until  the  present  time.     I  am  still  in  commission. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  person  by  the  name  of  John  Lee,  who  was  a  witness  in 
this  case  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  kuQW  his  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity  1 

A.  I  knew  Mr.  Lee  by  reputation  during  the  greater  part  of  the  time  that  I 
was  in  that  ward,  which  was  until  1865,  say  the  14th  of  February,  when  my 
commission  run  out.  I  only  knew  him  by  reputation.  Perhaps  I  had  seen 
him,  but  not  to  know  him.     Since  that  I  have  known  him  personally. 

Q.  Wh  at  do  people  generally  say  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  many  people  speak  unfavorabl}''  of  "  Jack  "  or  "  John 
Lee,"  as  they  familiarly  called  him,  during  that  period. 

Q.  What  verdict  do  the  people  in  the  neighboi-hood  in  which  he  lives  pro- 
nounce upon  him,  as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  many  say  that  they  would  not  believe  him. 

Q.  From  what  you  have  heard  said  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth,  by  those  among 
whom  he  lived  and  with  whom  he  associated,  would  you  believe  him  on  oath  '! 
A.  If  I  took  the  reputation,  I  should  say  not. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepo.xt: 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  who  you  have  heard  say  they  would  not  believe  him  un- 
der oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  could  mention  individuals,  because  it  was  a  gen- 
eral thing  in  my  office  during  the  time  I  was  presiding  there. 

Q.  Among  those  numbers,  can  you  tell  us  some  four  or  live  of  them  ? 

A.  I  might  perhaps  mention  correctly  the  names,  and  then  again  I  might 
make  a  mistake  and  mention  the  names  of  parties  whom  I  would  not  wish  to 
implicate,  because  I  never  expected  such  a  thing  as  to  be  called  upon  to  give 
their  names  here. 

Q.  You  see  I  want  to  know  who  they  are,  and  where  they  live,  in  order  that 
we  may  call  them  if  necessary.  You  would  oblige  us  if  you  will  try  and  think 
of  some  of  them. 

A.  I  would  not  like  to  ri.-^k  giving  names,  because  I  might  make  a  mistake 
with  regard  to  some  of  the  names. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  name  of  anybody  who  said  that  they  would  not  believe 
him  under  oath  ? 


598  TEIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  The  only  one  person  that  I  remember  of,  so  as  to  be  able  to  mention  his 
name  positively,  is  Mr.  William  Magee, 

Q.  "Where  does  he  live? 

A.  His  place  of  business  is  on  E  street. 

Q.  What  is  his  business  ? 

A.  He  keeps  a  restaurant  and  bowling  saloon. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  ever  had  any  difficulty  with  Lee  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had  any  difficulty  Avith  Lee  personally. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  so  1 

A.  No,  sir 

Q.  Is  that  all  ? 

A.  I  would  not  like  to  be  definite,  because  that  is  a  great  difficulty  in  my 
mind ;  I  might  give  you  a  half  dozen  names  which  might  be  correct,  and  then 
again  they  might  not. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say,  that  although  you  cannot  give  particular  names, 
yet  such  was  the  general  talk  about  him? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  such  was  the  talk  in  my  office  frequently. 

Joshua  Lloyd  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  On  Capitol  Hill. 

Q.  State  what  you  have  been  engaged  in  during  the  past  five  or  eight  years 
— since  the  war. 

A.  During  the  war  I  was  on  the  detective  force  at  the  depot  under  Colonel 
O'Beirne. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee,  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  a  member  of  that  force  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q  Did  John  Lee  ever  say  tn  you  at  the  Kirkwood  House,  in  this  city,,  just 
after  the  assassination  of  the  President,  that  he  did  not  know  Surratt,  and  had 
never  seen  him  ? 

Mr.  Pierkepont.  I  object. 

(Objection  sustained  by  the  court  on  the  ground  that  the  foundation  bad  not 
been  laid.     Exception  reserved.) 

^.  Do  you  know  John  Lee's  general  character,  and  what  those  on  the  force 
said  of  him  as  to  his  being  a  man  of  truth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  these  people  said  about  hira  as  to  his  being  a  truthful 
man,  or  a  man  who  would  lie. 

A.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  man  on  the  force  who  would  believe  him  on  his 
oath. 

Q.  From  what  the  men  on  that  force  said  about  him  as  a  man  who  would 
tell  the  truth,  or  as  a  man  who  would  lie,  would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  suppose  he  could  tell  the  truth,  don't  you  ? 

A.  I  suppose  he  could. 

Q.  Do  you  suppose  if  he  were  called  to  speak  in  a  matter  in  which  he  had 
an  interest  which  would  lead  him  to  speak  falsely,  he  would  be  more  apt  to 
speak  falsely  than  truly  ? 

A.  I  think  he  would. 


TEIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  599 

Q.  Tbeu  if  he  should  come  to  you  and  make  you  auy  statement  of  any  facts 
you.  would  take  it  for  granted  it  was  false  1 
A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  done  it. 
Q.  And  ahvays  did  so,  didn't  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  did. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Were  you  on  the  same  force  with  Lee  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  brother  officers  together  ? 

A.  I  cannot  exactly  say — may  be  a  year,  may  be  more. 

Q.  Did  you  at  that  time  entertain  the  opinion  that  you  have  expressed  here? 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  caught  him  in  so  many  falsehoods 

The  District  Attorney.  That  is  not  exactly  responsive  to  my  question. 
I  asked  if  you  then  had  the  opinion  of  him  that  you  say  you  now  have,  and 
have  expressed  here. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  make  complaint  of  him  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  To  whom  ? 

A.  To  Colonel  O'Beirne. 

Q.  After  you  made  complaint  to  Colonel  O'Beirne,  did  he  remove  him  from 
office? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  continued  him  in  his  service  notwithstanding  your  complaint  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  a  witness  before  the  military  commission  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Lee  a  witness  there  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  was. 

Q.  Was  Lee  employed  by  the  authorities  to  aid  in  the  investigation  of  the 
assassination  of  the  President  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick  as  not  responsive.  Objection  overruled,  and  wit- 
ness directed  to  answer.) 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  I  will  now  ask  you  if  you  and  he  did  not  act  together  in  this  matter. 
First,  were  you  engaged  in  searching  out  the  persons  who  were  suspected  of 
assassinating  the  President  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Lee,  at  the  same  time  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  but  we  were  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  We  were  not  to- 
gether at  that  time.  We  met  at  Bryantown,  on  that  search,  but  had  very  little 
conversation. 

Q.  Has  there  ever  been  any  difficulty  between  you  and  Lee  ? 

A.  Never  in  our  lives. 

Q.  Did  Lee  ever  complain  of  you  to  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  He  might  have. 

Q.  Did  not  he  charge  you  with  falsehoods  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  of  it. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  he  did  make  complaint  of  you  1 

A.  I  never  heard  of  it. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Did  Lee,  notwithstanding  this  trait  you  speak  of,  of  never  telling  the 
truth  when  he  came  to  you,  prove  to  be  a  useful  man  iu  the  business  he  was  en- 
gaged in  ? 


600  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  Not  as  I  know  of.  He  might  have  been,  but  it  didn't  come  under  my  no- 
tice at  all. 

Q.  As  a  detective,  was  it  not  important  to  bring  truthful  information,  or  waa 
false  better  ? 

A.  Truthful,  I  suppose. 

Q.  Truthful  iuformation  was  desirable,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  he  never  gave  any,  did  he  ? 

A.  He  never  gave  any  to  me  that  I  know  of. 

Re-examination  by  Mr.  Merrick  :  * 

Q   Do  you  say  that  you  reported  him  to  Colonel  O'Beirne  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  not  removed  by  Colonel  O'Beirne  afterwards  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  he  removed  for  ? 

A.  Something  about  a  horse  in  Maryland. 

Objected  to  as  not  responsive.     Objection  sustained  and  answer  ruled  out. 

Charles  Kimbel  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Please  state  where  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  ? 

A.  Almost  all  my  life. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

A.  Constable. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  office  ? 

A.  Fifteen  or  twenty  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  John  Lee  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  1  know  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  people  say  of  him,  as  a  man  who  tells  the  truth  or 
tells  a  lie  ? 

A.  Some  people  speak  pretty  hard  about  him. 

Mr.  Pier  RE  PONT.    I  object  to  this  mode  of  examination. 

The  Court.  The  first  question  to  be  put  to  the  witness  is  whether  he  has 
ever  heard  his  character  and  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  discixssed  among 
^he  people  who  are  acquainted  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.    Very  well,  your  honor,  I  will  put  it  in  that  form. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  heard  his  character  for  truth  and  veracity  discussed  by  the 
people  among  whom  he  lives,  or  who  are  acquainted  with  him  ? 

A.  I  never  paid  very  particular  attention,  but  I  have  heard  some  people 
speak  very  hard  about  him.  I  never  was  very  intimately  acquainted  with  Mr. 
Lee  until  he  got  the  appointment  of  magistrate. 

Mr.  INIerrick.  I  did  not  ask  about  your  personal  acquaintance.  I  want  to 
know  what  other  people  say  of  him.  Suppose  him,  now,  to  be  a  man  that  you 
did  not  know  anything  about,  and  whom  you  had  never  seen,  what  did  people 
whom  you  know  say  generally  of  John  Lee  before  this  ti'ial  1 

A.  I  did  not  hear  him  spoken  of  so  frequently  before  the  trial  as  I  have 
since. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  spoken  of  at  all  before  the  trial  ? 

A.  I  heard  some  people  speak  hard  about  him  before  the  trial. 

Q.  What  did  they  say  about  him  as  to  truth  and  veracity  1 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.    What  some  people  said  ] 

The  Court.    He  must  only  speak  of  his  general  reputation. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  601 

Mr.  ^Ferrick.  You  say  you  have  heard  him  discussed  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  persons  speak  casually  of  John  Lee. 

Q.  What  was  the  general  opinion  thus  casually  expressed  in  regard  to  his 
being  a  man  of  truth,  or  a  man  of  falsehood  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  some  people  say  that  he  was  a  damned  rascal. 

The  Court.  You  must  not  speak  of  what  some  people  say,  but  state  what 
is  the  general  opinion. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Mr.  Kimbel,  we  only  want  to  know  what  was  generally  said 
when  the  question  about  his  truth  or  falsehood  arose. 

'Mr.  Pferrepont.  We  do  not  want  that,  if  your  honor  please.  I  submit  that 
your  honor  has  twice  ruled  upon  it. 

Mr.  ^[errick.  If  I  depart  from  what  your  honor  has  ruled,  I  do  it,  sir, 
through  ignorance. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  The  ruling  of  the  court  should  be  followed. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  desire  to  follow  it. 

The  Court.  This  witness  should  be  asked  if  he  does  know  the  general  repu- 
tation that  this  man  bore  for  truth  and  veracity. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  As  yet  he  has  said  he  does  not.  That  is,  so  far  as  he  has 
said  anything.     He  only  heard  particular  persons  speak  so  and  so, 

Mr.  Merrick.  Is  it  necessary  that  an  entire  community  should  express 
an  opinion  ?  It  is  enough,  as  I  conceive,  for  a  dozen  persons  or  half  a  dozen 
in  a  community,  at  different  times,  casually  discussing  an  individual  upon  this 
subject,  to  pronounce  that  opinion. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiXT.  General  repute  is  the  law. 

Mr.  Merrick.  General  repute  is  formed  by  the  general  opinion  expressed 
when  the  subject  is  discussed.  It  is  scarcel_y  ever  the  case  that  a  man 
without  taint  has  his  veracity  questioned  in  a  community.  That  being  so,  when 
his  veracity  is  questioned  in  a  discussion,  the  inquiry  is  to  know  how  far  you 
can  rely  upon  that  man's  word — what  is  the  verdict  pronounced  when  the  matter 
is  discussed. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  your  honor  please,  have  not  these  questions  been  settled 
a  great  many  times;  and  is  not  the  first  question  acknowledged  to  be  "  Whether 
he  knows  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  ?" 

The  Court.  That  is  the  first  question,  and  it  is  very  easy  for  the  witness  to 
answer  it,  and  he  must  answer  it. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  will  so  frame  the  question,  your  honor. 

Q.  State  if  you  know  what  was  generally  thought  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth 
and  veracity. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  object  to  that.  You  must  ask  what  was  said 
of  him. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Xor  has  he  yet  the  right  to  ask  what  was  said  of  him.  He 
must  first  be  asked  if  he  knoics  what  his  general  reputation  is  for  truth  and 
veracity. 

Mr.  Bradley.  The  Supreme  Coiirt,  your  honor,  three  years  ago  settled  the 
order  of  the  question  and  the  questions.  I  have  not  the  book  in  court,  but  if 
your  honor  will  indulge  me  a  moment,  I  will  send  and  get  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Does  this  subject  require  any  new  discussion.  Is  it  not  a 
well  settled  matter  1 

The  Court.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  so,  but  Mr.  Bradley  thinks  some  new  light 
has  been  thrown  upon  it  by  a  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  If  that  is 
so,  of  course  we  must  bow  in  deference  to  the  authority. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Certainly,  if  there  is  any  new  light. 

The  District  Attorney.  Your  honor  will  observe  that  any  detective,  any 
executive  officer,  is  very  apt  to  have  things  said  against  his  character,  and  there- 
to 


602  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

fore  it  is  very  proper  tliat  the  question  should  first  be,   "  "What  is  his  general 
reputation  among  his  neighbors,  among  those  who  know  him  ?" 

The  Court.  1  have  ruled  that  the  first  question  to  be  put  is  this  :  "  Are  you 
acquainted  with  the  general  character  or  reputation  of  the  witness  for  truth  and 
veracity  in  the  neighborhood  in  which  he  resides,  or  has  resided  at  any  given 
time,  among  those  who  know  him  ?"  If  that  question  is  answered  in  the  affirm- 
ative, the  next  question  is,  "  What  is  that  general  reputation  for  truth  and 
veracity  ?"  You  might  proceed,  Mr.  Merrick,  with  the  examination  with  the 
understanding  that  it  is  subject  to  the  decision  which  has  been  referred  to,  if  it 
be  found  to  be  applicable. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  will  then  ask  you  whether  you  do  or  not  know  his  general 
reputation  among  the  people  who  know  him  where  he  resides,  as  a  man  of  truth 
and  veracity  ? 

A.  Well,  sir,  when  he  was  first  appointed  magistrate 

Mr.  Merrick.  Never  mind  about  that. 

Witness.  I  was  going  to  explain  it  in  that  way.  I  have  only  heard  people 
speak  of  him  iu  that  way  pretty  hard. 

Mr.  Merrick.  The  question  is,  Do  you  know  what  his  general  reputation  is? 
You  know  what  "general  reputation"  means. 

Witness.  From  what  I  have  heard  I  should  not  think  it  was  very  good. 

Q.  Do  jon  know  it  1 

A.  Only  from  what  other  people  say. 

My.  Pierrepoxt.  That  isn't  an  answer. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Reputation  is  made  up  of  what  other  people  say. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  AYhat  people  generally  say. 

WiTXE-ss.  I  have  heard  people  say  he  was  pretty  hard. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Then  you  don't  know  his  general  reputation,  as  I  under- 
stand you  ? 

A.  I  could  not  answer  that  I  do  know  it,  only  from  what  I  have  heard  other 
people  say. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  general  reputation.     You  know  what  other  people  say  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Do  you  know  what  they  generally  say — not  what  a  few 
say? 

A.  I  have  had  people's  business  to  attend  to,  and  when  I  have  spoken  of 
carrying  it  before  Lee  they  would  say  "  No,  I  would  not  trust  him." 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  That  is  not  reputation  for  truth. 

The  Court.  That  will  not  do. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Have  you  heard  people  speak  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth  or  falsehood  1 

A.  1  have  heard  people  say  that  they  would  not  believe  him. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  submit  that  that  will  do. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  That  is  not  answering  the  question  as  to  his  general  repu- 
tation.    You  can  find  people  who  will  say  they  would  not  believe  anybody. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Mr.  Bradley,  your  honor,  has  just  handed  me  the  authority  to 
which  he  referred.  1  will  read  it.  It  is  the  case  of  Teese  et  al.  vs.  Hunting- 
ton et  al.,  23d  Howard,  p.  10  : 

"  After  the  defence  was  closed,  the  plaintiff  ofiered  evidence  to  impeach  one  of 
the  witnesses,  who  had  given  material  testimony  for  the  defendants.  When 
called,  the  impeaching  witness  stated  that  he  knew  the  witness  sought  to  be 
impeached,  and  knew  other  persons  who  were  acquainted  with  the  witness,  and 
that  they  both  resided  in  the  city  of  Sacramento ;  whereupon  the  counsel  of 
the  plaintiffs  put  the  question  :  '  What  is  the  reputation  of  the  witness 
for  moral  character?'  To  that  question  the  counsel  of  the  defendants  objected, 
on  the  ground  that  the  inquiry  should  be  limited  to  the  general  reputation  of 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT  603 

the  witness  for  trutli  and  veracity,  with  the  right  to  put  the  further  inquiry, 
whether  tlie  witness  testifying  woukl  believe  the  other  on  his  oath  ;  and  tlie 
court  sustained  the  objection,  and  rejected  the  testimony. 

"No  reasons  were  assigned  by  the  court  for  the  ruling,  aiul  of  course  the  only 
point  presented  is,  whether  the  particular  question  propounded  was  properly 
excluded. 

"Courts  of  justice  differ  very  widely  whether  the  general  reputation  of  the 
witness  for  truth  and  veracity  is  the  true  and  sole  criterion  of  his  credit,  or 
whether  the  inquiry  may  not  properly  be  extended  to  his  entire  moral  charac- 
ter and  estimation  in  society.  They  also  differ  as  to  the  right  to  inquire  of  the 
impeaching  witness  whether  he  would  believe  the  other  on  his  oath.  All  agree, 
however,  that  the  lirst  inquiry  must  be  restricted  either  to  the  general  reputa- 
tion of  the  witness  for  truth  and  veracity,  or  to  his  general  character,  and  that 
it  cannot  be  extended  to  particular  facts  or  transactions,  for  the  reason  that, 
while  every  man  is  supposed  to  be  fully  prepared  to  meet  those  general  inqui- 
ries, it  is  not  likely  he  would  be  equally  so  without  notice  to  answer  as  to 
particular  acts. 

"According  to  the  views  of  Mr.  Greenleaf,  the  inquiry  in  all  cases  should  be 
restricted  to  the  general  reputation  of  the  witness  for  truth  and  veracity;  and 
he  also  expresses  the  opinion,  that  the  Aveight  of  authority  in  the  American  courts 
is  against  allowing  the  question  to  be  put  to  the  impeaching  witness,  whether  he 
would  believe  the  other  on  his  oath.  In  the  last  edition  of  his  Avork  on  tlie  law 
of  evidence,  he  refers  to  several  decided  cases,  which  appear  to  support  these 
positions  ;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  some  of  these  decisions,  as  well  as  others 
that  have  since  been  made  to  the  same  effect,  are  enforced  by  reasons  drawn 
from  tlie  analogies  of  the  law,  to  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  give  any  satis- 
factory answer — I  Greenleaf  Ev.,  sec.  461  ;  Philips  vs.  Kingfield,  19  Me.,  375, 
per  Shepley,  J. ;  Goss  vs.  Stirapson,  2  Sum.,  610  ;  Wood  vs.  Mann,  2  Sum.,  321  ; 
Craig  vs.  the  State,  5  Ohio,  R.  S  ,  605;  Gilbert  vs.  Sheldcn,  13  Barb.,  623  ;  Jack- 
son vs.  Lewis,  13  Johns.  11.,  504  ;  United  Slates  vs.  Van  Sickle,  2  McLean,  219  ; 
State  vs.  Bruce,  24  Me.,  72;  Com,  vs.  Morse,  3  Pick,  196;  Gilchrist  vs.  McKee, 
4  Watts,  380 ;  State  vs.  Smith,  7  Vt.  R.,  141 ;  Frye  vs.  Bank  of  Illinois,  11  111. 
R.,  367;  Jones  vs.  the  State,  13  Texas.  R,  168;  State  vs.  Randolph,  24  Conn.  R., 
363;  Uhl  rs.  Com,  6  Gratt,  706;  Wike  vs.  Lightner,  11  S.  and  R.,  388;  Kem- 
mel  vs.  Kemmel,  3  S.  and  R.,  338;  State  vs  Howard,  9  N.  H.,  485;  Buckner 
vs.  the  State,  20  Ohio  18;  Ford  vs.  Ford,  7  Ilumphr.,  92;  Thurman  ^•A•.  Virgin, 
18  B.  Monroe,  792;  Peridns  vs.  Nobly,  4  Ohio,  R.  S.,  668;  Bates  vs.  Barber,  4 
Cush.,  107. 

"On  the  other  hand,  a  recent  English  writer  on  the  law  of  evidence,  of  great 
repute,  maintains  that  the  inquiry  in  such  cases  properly  involves  the  entire 
moral  character  of  the  witness  whose  credit  is  thus  impeached,  and  his  estimation 
iu  society;  and  that  the  opinion  of  the  impeaching  witness,  as  to  whether  he  is 
entitled  to  be  believed  on  his  oath,  is  also  admissible  to  the  jury — 2  Taylor  Ev., 
sees.,  1082,  1083. 

"That  learned  writer  insists  that  the  regular  mode  of  examining  into  the  char- 
acter of  the  witness  sougiit  to  be  impeached,  is  to  ask  the  witness  testifying 
whether  he  knows  his  general  reputation;  and  if  so,  what  tliat  reputation  is 
and,  whether,  from  such  knowledge,  he  would  believe  him  uijon  his  oath.  In 
support  of  this  mode  of  conducting  the  examination,  he  refers  to  several  decided 
cases,  both  Euglish  and  American,  which  appear  to  sustain  th  ■  views  of  the 
writer — Rees  vs.  Watson,  32  How.  St.  Tr.,  496  ;  Manson  vs.  Hartsink,  4  Esp.  R., 
104 ;  Rex  vs.  Rockwood,  13  How.  St.  Tr.,  211;  Carpenter  vs  Wall,  11  Ad.  and 
El.,  803;  Anonymous,  I  Ildl  (S.  C,)  259;  Hume  vs.  Scott,  3  A.  K.  Marshall, 
262;  Day  vs.  the  State,  13  Mess..  422;  3  Am.  Law  Jour.,  N.  S.,  145." 

The  Court.  The  view  of  Mr.  Taylor  coincides  precisely  with  the  one  I  en- 
tertain,  and    which    I    shall  continue  to  eutertain,  unless    I  am    required    to 


604  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

modify  it  by  the  decisions  of  tlie  Supreme  Court.  When  an  eflPort  is  being  made 
to  attack  the  credibility  of  a  witness,  the  first  question  to  be  put  to  the  party  on 
the  stand,  who  is  being  examined  with  this  view,  is  as  to  his  knowledge  of  the 
general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  of  the  witness  whose  testimony  it 
is  sought  to  impeach.  If  this  question  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  tlien 
he  is  allowed  to  state  what  that  general  reputation  is.  It  must  be,  however, 
general  reputation,  not  the  reputation  as  derived  from  a  few  individuals,  for  there 
is  no  man  in  this  land  of  whom  the  tongue  of  defamation  has  not  spoken.  Even 
Washington  and  Lincoln  have  not  been  exempt  from  such.  Some,  there  were 
no  doubt,  who  would  have  declared  they  would  not  believe  them  on  their  oath. 
I  have  heard  things  said  of  Henry  Clay  and  Daniel  Webster,  which  could  not 
have  had  any  foundation  in  truth,  and  were  prompted,  perhaps,  by  some  per- 
sonal feeling. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Your  honor's  remarks  on  that  subject  are  undoubtedly  very  just. 

The  Court.  What  some  people  say  will  not  do,  but  the  general  reputation, 
the  preponderating  weight  of  reputation  that  is  given  to  the  individual  among 
the  people  who  know  him,  is  required. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Taylor's  view,  however,  your  honor,  is  somewhat  different, 
if  1  do  not  misunderstand  it,  in  this  respect :  he  allows  reputation  for  character 
generally.     He  does  not  restrict  it  to  truth  and  veracity. 

The  Court.  I  understood  it  as  being  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity.  I 
know  the  English  rule  is  different  from  ours  in  that  particular. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  true.  Our  courts  are,  however,  progressing 
very  rapidly  in  the  direction  of  the  English  rules  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Merrick  then  continued  reading  from  the  same  authority,  as  follows: 

"  Both  Mr.  Greenleaf  and  Mr.  Taylor  agree,  however,  that  the  impeaching 
witness  must  be  able  to  state  what  is  generally  said  of  the  other  witness  by 
those  among  whom  he  resides,  and  with  whom  he  is  chiefly  conversant,  and  in  effect 
admit  that  unless  he  can  so  speak  he  is  not  qualified  to  testify  upon  the  subject, 
tor  the  reason  that  it  is  only  what  is  generally  said  of  the  witness  by  his  neigh- 
bors that  constitutes  his  general  reputation.  To  that  extent  they  concur,  and 
so,  as  a  general  remark,  do  the  nuthorities  which,  on  the  one  side  and  the  other, 
support  these  respective  theories,  but  beyond  that  the  views  of  these  comment- 
ators, as  well  as  the  authorities,  appear  to  be  irreconcilable. 

''In  referring  to  this  conflict  of  opinion  among  text  writers  and  judicial  decis- 
ions, we  have  not  done  so  because  there  is  anything  presented  in  this  record  that 
makes  it  necessary  to  choose  between  them,  or  even  renders  it  proper  that  we 
should  attempt  at  the  present  time  to  lay  down  any  general  rule  upon  the  5iub- 
ject.  On  the  contrary,  our  main  purpose  in  doing  so  is  to  bring  the  particular 
question  exhibited  in  the  bill  of  exceptions  to  the  test  of  both  theories  in  order 
to  ascertain  whether  under  either  rule  of  practice  it  ought  to  have  been  allowed. 
Under  the  first  mode  of  conducting  the  examination  it  is  admitted  that  it  was 
properly  rejected,  and  we  think  it  was  equally  improper,  supposing  the  other 
rule  of  practice  to  be  correct.  Whenever  a  witness  is  called  to  impeach  the  credit 
of  another,  he  must  know  what  is  generally  said  of  the  witness  whose  credit  is 
impeached  by  those  among  whom  the  last-named  witness  resides,  in  order  that 
he  may  be  able  to  answer  the  inquiry  either  as  to  his  general  character  in  the 
broader  sense,  or  as  to  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity.  He  is  not 
required  to  speak  from  his  own  knowledge  of  the  acts  and  transactions  from 
which  the  character  or  reputation  of  the  witness  has  been  derived,  nor,  indeed, 
is  he  allowed  to  do  so,  but  he  must  speak  from  his  own  knowledge  of  what  is 
generally  said  of  him  by  those  among  whom  he  resides,  and  with  whom  he  is 
chiefly  conversant,  and  any  question  that  does  not  call  for  such  knowledge  is  an 
improper  one  and  ought  to  be  rejected.  No  case  has  been  cited  authorizing  such 
a  question,  or  even  furnishing  an  example  where  it  was  put,  and  our  researches 
in  that  direction  have  not  been  attended  with  any  better  success.     For  these 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  605 

reasons  we  think  the  question  was  properly  exchidecl.  Some  further  attempts 
were  made  by  the  plaintiffs  to  impeach  this  witness,  and  with  that  view  they 
called  another  witness,  who  testified  that  he  knew  the  one  sought  to  be  impeached, 
and  had  had  business  transactions  with  him  during  the  years  lS52-'53,  in  the  city 
where  they  resided.  On  being  asked  by  the  counsel  of  the  plaintiffs  what  was 
the  reputation  of  the  witness  for  truth  and  veracity,  he  replied  that  he  had  no 
means  of  knowing  what  it  was,  not  having  had  any  dealings  with  hira  since  those 
transactions :  thereupon  the  same  counsel  repeated  the  question,  limiting  it  to  that 
period." 

Objection  was  made  to  that  question  by  the  counsel  of  the  defendants  on  the 
ground  that  the  period  named  in  the  question  was  too  remote,  and  the  court 
sustained  the  objection  and  excluded  the  question.  To  this  ruling  the  plaintiff 
excepted.  Such  testimony  undoubtedly  may  properly  be  exckxded  by  the 
court  when  it  applies  to  a  period  of  time  so  remote  from  the  transaction  involved 
in  the  controversy  as  thereby  to  become  entirely  unsatisfactory  and  immaterial; 
and  as  the  law  cannot  fix  that  period  of  limitation,  it  must  necessarily  be  l?ft 
to  the  discretion  of  the  court.  Considering  that  the  witness  had  already  stated 
that  he  was  not  able  to  answer  the  question,  we  do  not  think  that  the  discre- 
tion of  the  court,  in  this  case,  was  unreasonably  exercised.  None  of  the  ex- 
ceptions can  be  sustained,  and  the  judgment  of  the  circuit  court  is  therefore 
affirmed  with  costs." 

Mr.  PiERREPO.\T.  We  all  agree  then  on  the  law. 

Mr.  Merkick.  I  do  not  know  as  we  differ  as  regards  terms,  I  find,  however, 
this  opinion  goes  further  tlian  the  Supreme  Court  goes.  It  evidently  indicates 
that  the  judges  are  inclined  to  adopt  the  English  rule  and  allow  the  inquiry  to 
be  as  to  the  party's  general  character.  I  had  not  supposed  that  this  decision 
went  as  fiir  as  that. 

The  Court.     Proceed  with  the  examination. 

By  Mr.  Merrtck  : 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  or  not  you  know  what  is  generally  said  of  him  as 
a  man  of  truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  heard  but  very  few  persons  speak  of  him  before  this  trial. 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  That  ends  it. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  now  propose  to  ask  the  witness  this  question,  "  If  he  knows 
what  is  generally  said  of  him  since  this  trial  '." 

Mr.  PiERREPo.N'T.  I  object  to  that. 

The  CoTRT.  I  wili  state  that  while  I  preside  here  I  do  not  intend  to  allow 
any  man's  character  to  be  damned  or  sanctified  simply  by  the  rumors  or  the 
talk  which  may  have  been  occasioned  by  testimony  which  he  may  have  given 
in  a  particular  case.  It  Avill  not  do  thus  to  tear  down  the  barriers  of  justice,  for 
then  no  truth  or  justice  will  be  reached  in  any  case.  That  is  my  opinion,  and 
I  shall  entertain  it  until  I  am  overruled  by  some  paramount  authority. 

Mr.  Merrick  reserved  an  exception. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  now  propose  to  ask  the  witness  this  question:  Did  John 
Lee  say  to  you  in  the  office  of  Edgar  Bates  in  this  city,  within  a  year  past,  and 
before  Surratt  was  brought  here,  that  he  did  not  know  Surratt,  and  hud  never 
seen  him  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object. 

Objection  sustained  because  of  no  foundation  having  been  laid.  Exception 
reserved. 

Frederick  Calvert  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  No.  115  Pennsylvania  avenue. 


606  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  city  ? 

A.  All  my  life. 

Q.  Where  are  you  now  employed  ? 

A.  In  the  War  Department. 
'  Q.  What  branch  ? 

A.  Adjutant  General's  office. 

Q.  How  were  you  engaged  during  the  war  ? 

A.  In  the  forepart  of  the  war  I  was  in  the  service ;  after  leaving  the  service 
I  was  employed  as  quartermaster  for  the  engineers'  department  at  Fort  Ethan 
Allen. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  John  Lee  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Lee  employed  under  Colonel  O'Beirne  1 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Were  you  also  thus  employed  ? 

A.  I  was 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  you  know  Avhat  his  general  reputation  among 
the  men  with  whom  he  associated  was,  as  regards  being  a  man  of  truth  or 
being  a  man  of  falsehood. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do. 

Q.  Will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  state  what  that  general  reputation  was  ? 

A.  He  seemed  to  be  doubted  in  almost  everything  he  did  up  there.  His 
general  reputation  among  the  men  was  bad. 

Q.  From  what  you  know  of  his  reputation  would  you  believe  him  on  his 
oath  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Carrington.     Objection  overruled.) 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  will  repeat  the  question. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  or  not  fiom  what  you  know  of  his  general 
reputation,  from  what  people  say,  you  Avould  believe  him  on  his  oath. 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  if  my  life  was  at  stake. 

Cross-examination  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  You  would  not  believe  any  man  who  was  trying  to  take  away  your  life 
on  his  oath,  would  you  ? 

A.  A  man  of  better  reputation  than  his  I  would. 

Q.  When  trying  to  take  away  your  life  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     1  do  not  object  to  any  man  telling  the  truth. 
"Q.  Do  you  know  the  Secretary  of  War  ? 

A.  I  am  not  personally  acquainted  with  him. 

Q.  Did  Lee  know  him  by  sight  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say.     I  suppose  he  did. 

Q.  Name  some  officer  in  Washington  whom  he  did  know  by  sight. 

A.  He  knew  Colonel  O'Beirne. 

Q.  If  you  had  gone  over  to  Colonel  O'Beirne's  office  to  see  him,  and  while 
looking  for  him  with  some  earnest  message,  Mr.  Lee  had  come  in  and  told  you 
he  had  just  seen  him  going  into  the  President's  house,  would  you  have  believed 
him  ? 

A.  That  would  depend  altogether  upon  circumstances. 

Q.  Under  just  the  circumstances  I  am  narrating  ? 

A  If  I  were  tried  Avith  a  case  I  might  be  able  to  decide.  I  cannot  now  say 
whether  I  would  or  not. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  will  again  ask  you  this  question  :  If  you  were  going 
over  to  Colonel  O'Beirne's  office  to  deliver  a  message,  and  in  your  earnest  pur- 
suit of  the  colonel  to  deliver  it  immediately,  you  were  to  make  inquiry  of  Mr. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  607 

Lee,  and  he  should  i?ay,  I  jnst  passed  the  President's  house  and  saw  hiin  go  in 
there,  would  you  believe  it  ? 

A.  If  I  could  not  satisfy  myself  otherwise  I  might  believe  it. 

Q.  Would  you  go  to  the  President's  house  to  see  1 

A.  If  I  could  not  find  him  anywhere  else. 

Q.  Would  you  go  somewhere  else  first  or  there  first  ? 

A.  I  cannot  answer  that  clearly.  If  I  thought  the  man  was  about  the  build- 
ing, I  might  look  all  over  the  building  first. 

Q.  I  repeat,  suppose,  while  you  were  thus  earnestly  seeking  Colonel  O'Beirne, 
Mr.  Loe  should  say  to  you  that  he  had  just  seen  him  go  into  the  President's 
house,  would  you  go  there  to  see  him  ? 

A.  Certainly,  if  he  was  not  about  the  office. 

Q.  Then  you  would  believe  Avliat  he  said  ? 

A.  Of  course  in  that  case  I  would. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  You  have  expressed  the  opinion  that  you  would  not  believe  IMr.  Lee  on 
oath.  Is  your  opinion  of  him  such  that  you  would  not  believe  his  sworn  state- 
ment in  a  matter  where  he  had  not  the  least  interest  in  misrepresenting  the  truth  ? 

A.  Not  if  I  thought  there  was  prejudice. 

Q.  Suppose  there  was  no  prejudice  ? 

A.  It  is  hard  for  me  to  state. 

Q.  Do  you  believe,  sir,  from  your  opinion  of  Mr.  Lee,  since  you  have  given 
your  opinion 

3Ir.  Merrkk.  He  has  given  the  general  opinion. 

The  District  Attornev.  Very  well,  then  ;  from  that  do  you  believe  that 
he  is  such  a  hai-dened  villain  that  he  would  come  into  this  court  and  swear  to 
what  he  knew  to  be  untrue  for  the  purpose  of  taking  away  the  life  of  a  man  who 
had  never  harmed  him,  and  against  whom  he  could  have  no  prejudice  whatever? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  j\Ierrick  ;  objection  overruled. 

The  District  Attorney.  Do  you  state  that  you  would  not  believe  him  when 
testifying  here  under  such  circumstances,  and  when  he  could  have  no  possible 
prejudice  against  the  man  ? 

A.  I  would  not,  from  general  reputation. 

Q.  Suppose  that,  under  the  circumstances  I  have  supposed,  he  should  swear 
to  one  fact  in  which  he  is  confirmed  by  twelve  other  witnesses,  do  you  say  that 
from  general  reputation  you  would  not  believe  him  on  oath  ? 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  object. 

The  Court.  That  is  another  question,  Mr.  Carrington. 

Mr.  Merrick.  Mr.  Carrington  thinks  he  has  got  to  the  jury. 

The  Court.  The  question  is,  whether  he  would  believe  this  man,  not  whether 
he  would  believe  other  men.     The  question  is  therefore  ruled  out. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  will  ask  you,  since  you  have  expressed  yourself 
so  strongly,  this  question  :  How  often  have  you  heard  his  reputation  for  truth 
and  veracity  discussed  ? 

A.  While  the  draft  was  going  on  I  heard  his  reputation  discussed  nearly  every 
day. 

Q,  By  whom  ? 

A.  1  could  not  name  the  particular  parties,  but  by  the  men  who  belonged  to  the 
force. 

Q.  Can  you  name  any  of  them  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  him  talked  of  by  Lloyd,  I  think. 

Q.  The  same  one  who  was  a  witness  here  'i 

A.  I  do  not  know  who  was  a  witness  here. 

Q.  You  mean  Joshua  Lloyd  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


608  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

Q.  Who  else  1 

A.  Garrison. 

Q.  Who  else  ? 

A.  I  cannot  name  all  of  tliem,  for  I  have  not  given  this  matter  the  least  pos- 
sil'le  thought  since  the  breaking  up  of  the  office. 

The  District  Attorney.  I  should  judge,  from  the  opinion  you  have  ex- 
pressed, that  you  must  have  given  it  a  great  deal  of  attention. 

Q.  Go  on  and  state,  if  you  please,  any  others  whom  you  recollect. 

A.  I  think  Michael  O'Callahan  was  one. 

Q.  Who  else  ? 

A.  Those  are  all  I  can  remember  now. 

Q.  How  often  have  you  heard  those  three  speak  of  his  repntation  for  truth  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  how  often,  positively. 

Q.  Give  me  some  idea,  for  it  is  a  serious  matter. 

A.  I  have  heard  them  on  several  occasions. 

Q.  AVhat  do  you  mean  by  several  occasions? 

A.  Probably  a  half-dozen  different  times. 

Q.  Not  more  than  a  half-dozen  times  ? 

A.  Might  have  been  more. 

Q.  Where  was  it  1 

A.  At  the  ofBce  of  the  provost  marshal. 

Q.  Anywhere  else  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  had  any  business  anywhere  else,  and  never  came  iu 
contact  with  them  on  any  other  occasion. 

Q.  Can  you  state  exactly  what  they  said  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  have  heard  him  discussed  by  these  three  men  on  six  different 
occasions,  though  you  cannot  recollect  what  they  said ;  and  upon  that  evidence 
you  base  the  opinion  which  you  have  expressed  to  the  jury  ] 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  not  what  the  witness  stated. 

The  Court.  I  understood  the  witness  to  say  that  he  had  heard  a  number  of 
persons  speak  of  him,  but  the  three  he  mentioned  were  all  that  he  could  name. 

Mr.  Merrick.  That  is  what  he  stated,  sir. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  substance  of  what  these  men  whom  you  heard  discuss- 
ing his  character  said  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  cannot,  positively. 

i^.  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  are  not  able  to  state  what  they 
said  in  reference  to  this  man's  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  ;  and  yet  you 
express  the  opinion  you  have  to  the  jury? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  this  man  in  the  service  at  the  provost  marshals  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  date  when  Colonel  O'Beirne  came  there ;  but  he  came 
to  the  office  shortly  after  Colonel  O'Beirne  took  charge,  and  was  there  until 
the  office  broke  up. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  in  the  service  ? 

A.  I  went  there  under  Colonel  Putnam,  and  just  prior  to  Colonel  O'Bierne's 
coming  there. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  difficulty  with  Lee  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Did  these  parties  whom  you  have  mentioned  have  any  difficulty  with 
him  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Didn't  you  know  of  his  making  complaint  of  them  ? 

A.  Not  of  those  I  have  mentioned. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SUERATT.  609 

Q.  Did  you  never  hear  their  characters  questioned,  as  also  that  of  every  de- 
tective there  ? 

Mr.  3IERRICK-,  I  ohject. 

The  District  Attorn rv.  Can  I  not  put  this  question  on  cross-examination  ? 

The  Court.  There  is  a  proper  way  for  you  to  impeach  the  character  of  these 
witnesses. 

The  District  Attorney.  Unquestionably,  your  honor;  but  this  witness 
having  referred  to  persons  whom  he  heai'd  speak  of  the  witness  whom  he  is 
called  to  impeach,  I  am  seeking  to  bring  out  all  that  was  said.  I  will  ask  the 
witness  this  (question  :  At  that  time,  when  you  heard  these  witnesses  speak 
of  Lee,  didn't  you  hear  by  some  of  them  something  said  derogatory  to  the 
character  of  the  other. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  object  to  that. 

The  Court.  You  have  a  right  to  all  that  was  said  touching  the  character  of 
Lee,  the  witness. 

The  District  Attornk^v.  Suppose  this  was  a  general  conversation  in  which 
these  men  were  quarrelling  and  contending  with  each  other. 

The  Court.  You  may  inquire  whether  it  was  a  case  of  crimination  and 
recrimination. 

Q.  At  the  time  you  heard  these  men  speak  of  Lee,  were  they  not  contend- 
ing with  each  other  ;  were  they  not  complaining  of  some  official  act  of  Lee's, 
and  were  there  not  criminations  and  recriminations  between  the  parties  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  can  remember. 

Q.  You  know  Joshua  Lloyd,  don't  you? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  no  contest  between  him  and  Lee  at  that  time,  and  spoken  of 
at  that  time,  between  the  parties  1 

A.  Not  in  my  heaiing,  or  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  I  do  not  think  you  have  told  me  how  long  Lee  was  kept  in  the  service  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  went  there  immediately  upon  Colonel 
O'Beirne's  taking  charge  of  the  office,  or  a  little  after. 

Q.  Was  it  a  year,  or  six  months,  or  two  years  1 

A.  It  was  between  six  months  and  a  year,  I  guess  ;  I  could  not  state  posi- 
tively. 

Q.  Was  he  not  connected  with  the  service  after  the  assassination  of  the 
President  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  not  he  aid  in  gathering  evidence  against  the  alleged  conspirators  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  co-operate  with  him  at  that  time? 

A.  I  was  on  duty  at  the  Kirkwood  house  taking  evidence  of  parties  who 
were  arrested  and  brought  there.  I  wrote  the  statements  down  ;  and  among 
others  his.  Colonel  O'Bierne  was  on  duty  at  the  Kirkwood  house,  and  his 
whole  force  was  ordered  to  report  there. 

Q.  Lee  was  at  the  Kirkwood  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  capacity  were  you  employed  at  that  time  ? 

A.  As  clerk.     I  was  taking  down  the  statements. 

Q.  What  was  Lee  doing  ? 

A.  He  was  there  as  a  detective ;  and  he  w^as  ordered  by  Colonel  O'Beirne  to 
come  into  tbe  room  where  I  was  and  make  a  statement. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  statement  he  gave  you? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  act  upon  his  information  ? 

(No  response.) 

Q.  Did  you  question  the  integrity  of  the  statements  he  made  to  you  1 


610  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  had  no  right  to. 

Q.  Did  you  doubt  the  integrity  of  the  statements  he  then  gave  you  1 
A.  I  cannot  say. 

Q.  You  can  state  whether  you  did  or  not. 

A.  I  cannot  state  that  I  doubted  the  statement  he  made  at  all. 
Q,  Didn't  you  find  the  information  he  gave  you  to  be  correct  ? 
A.  Only  from  what  I  saw  in  the  newspapers  afterwards. 
Q.  Did  you  make  a  personal  examination  to  see  whether  the  returns  which  he 
made  to  you  were  correct  or  not  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 

By  Mr.  Bkadley  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  prisoner  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  saw  him  until  I  came  into  court. 

By  Mr.  PlERREPON'T  : 
Q.  How  came  you  to  come  here  as  a  witness  ? 
A.  I  received  a  summons  at  my  office  to-day. 
Q.  Was  that  the  first  you  heard  of  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  spoke  about  what  you  could  tell  to  anybody  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  had  never  written  it  to  anybody  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Colonel  James  R.  O'Beirxe,  sworn  and  examined  : 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  What  position  do  you  at  present  hold  1 

A.  I  am  register  ot  wills. 

Q.  In  what  were  you  engaged  during  the  war  ? 

A.  I  was  an  officer  in  the  army. 

Q.  Until  what  time  ? 

A.  Until  January  1865. 

Q.  I  believe  you  now  hold  the  commission  of  bi'igadier  general  ? 

A.  I  have  been  brevetted ;  at  Last  1  have  been  so  informed,  but  the  official 
notice  has  not  yet  reached  me. 

"Q.  Were  you  provost  marshal  here  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  provost  marshal  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  had  charge  of  the  enrollment  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  from  January,  1865,  or  about  six  months  afterwards,  I  will 
not  be  positive  as  to  dates. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  under  your  command  at  any  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  was  my  chief  detective. 

Q.  From  what  time  1 

A.  From  the  time  I  took  charge  of  the  office  until  some  few  months  previous 
to  my  closing  it  up. 

Q.  Were  you  engaged  in  endeavoring  to  discover  the  assassins  of  the  Presi- 
dent ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  authorized  and  directed  by  Mr.  Stanton  to  employ  my- 
self and  my  detective  force  in  the  pursuit  of  the  assassins. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H     SURRATT.  611 

Q.  ."^tate  whether  or  not  you  discharp^od  John  Lee  from  the  service  ? 

(Objected  to  by  the  District  Attorney.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  When  did  he  leave  your  service  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  date  exactly  ;  it  was  some  few  months  prior  to  my 
closing  up  the  office. 

Q.  Did  he  resign  ? 

(Objected  to  by  the  District  Attorney.     01  jection  overruled.) 

A.  He  was  discharged  from  the  service  of  the  government  by  me. 

Q.  For  what? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  Avhut  his  reputation  was  for  truth  and  veracity  among  those 
with  whom  he  associated  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "Will  yciu  state  what  that  reputation  was? 

A.  It  was  bad. 

No  cross-examination. 

Samuel  K.  Brown,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr,  Bradley: 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  What  part  ? 

A.  Corner  of  Twentieth  street  and  Pennsylvania  avemae. 

Q.  Were  you  connected  with  Colonel  O'Bierne's  command  I 

\  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  position  ? 

A.  As  deputy. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  connected  with  that  command  ? 

A.  I  was  connected  with  the  office  for  upwards  of  two  years,  under  Captains 
Sheetz,  and  Putnam,  and  Colonel  O'Bierne. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee  who  has  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  he  connected  with  that  company  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  was 
among  the  men  with  whom  he  associated  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  good  or  bad  ? 

A.  Bad. 

Q.  Would  you,  from  what  you  know  of  bis  general  reputation  for  truth  and 
veracity,  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  With  many  grains  of  allowance. 
No  cross-examination. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  now  offer  in  evidence  the  record  of  the  trial  and  convic- 
tion, in  this  court,  of  the  witness  Cleaver. 

The  District  Attorney.  We  object  to  the  testimony.  As  I  understand 
the  rule,  such  evidence  can  be  introduced  only  where  a  person  lias  been  con- 
victed of  an  iniaiiious  crime,  and  senlence  been  passed  upon  him.  If  the  party 
has  merely  been  tried  and  convicted,  these  facts  are  not  admissible  in  evidence 
against  him  for  any  purpose,  especially  when  a  new  trial  has  been  granted.  All 
that  can  be  done  is,  upon  cross-examination,  to  ask  the  witness  whether  he  has 
been  tried  for  a  certain  offence,  which  question  being  collateral,  if  he  answers, 
they  are  bound  by  his  answer.  That  question  he  is  privileged,  under  the  in- 
struction of  the  court,  to  answer,  or  to  decline  to  answer,  as  he  may  see  proper, 
if  the  court  sees  that  it  may  tend  to  degrade  him.     For  Avhat  purpose  should 


612  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

they  be  allowed  to  give  in  evidence  a  record  showing  that  a  party  has  been  tried 
for  an  ojBFence,  but  never  been  sentenced.  He  stands  just  as  any  other  party. 
The  most  innocent  man  may  be  indicted ;  the  most  innocent  man  may  be  tried. 
He  is  not  a  guilty  man,  in  legal  contemplation,  until  the  sentence  of  the  court 
has  been  pronounced  upon  him.  If  the  object  is  to  affect  his  competency  before 
the  jury,  I  submit  that  the  only  way  in  which  that  can  be  done  is  upon  cross- 
examination. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  will  state  that  we  do  not  offer  it  for  the  purpose  of  affecting 
his  competency  ;  but  his  credibility. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  merely  desire  to  observe  that  the  only  object  in  pro- 
ducing a  record  of  this  kind  is  to  prevent  a  witness  testifying.  It  can  have  no 
such  effect  in  this  case,  as  the  witness  has  already  given  in  his  testimony.  Had 
it,  however,  been  produced  when  he  Avas  first  put  on  the  stand,  it  would  not  have 
prevented  him  testifying,  as  it  shows  on  its  face  that  the  verdict  rendered  has  been 
reversed.  It  cannot  be  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  he  was  not 
of  a  good  character,  because  he  was  fully  questioned  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Merrick.  I  shall  offer  the  indictment  and  record  of  conviction,  and  then 
the  gentlemen  may  rebut  it  by  whatever  else  the  record  may  show. 

Mr.  PiEREPONT.  You  cannot  offer  part  of  a  record  ;  and  the  point  we  make 
is  that  it  cannot  be  offered  at  all. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  he  was  aware  of  that.  He  then  stated  that  he  should 
have  to  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  court  to  adjourn  at  this  point,  as  his  colleague, 
]Mr.  Bradley,  senior,  was  suffering  from  severe  indisposition,  and  it  was  desirous 
that  the  defence  should  not  be  deprived  of  its  right  arm  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Garrington  stated  that  it  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  prosecution  to  press 
the  trial  if  counsel  on  the  other  side  was  sick. 

The  court  concurred  in  the  propriety  of  suspending  for  a  day,  as  Mr.  Bradley 
appeared  to  be  suffering  from  indisposition,  and  therefore,  at  2.25  p.  m.,  ordered 
a  recess  until  to-morrow  morning,  at  10  o'clock. 

Wednesday,  July  10,  1S67. 
The  Court  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Thomas  J.  Ravbold,  residence  Baltimore,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  In  the  month  of  April,  1865,  were  you  in  any  manner  connected  with 
Ford's  theatre,  in  the  city  of  Washington  ? 

A.  1  was. 

_Q.  Were  you  there  on  the  14th  of  April,  the  day  of  the  assassination  of  the 
President  % 

A.  I  was  there  on  that  day. 

Q.  What  was  your  connection,  what  position  in  that  theatre  ? 

A.  I  had  charge  of  the  front  of  the  house,  and  of  the  out- door  business  of 
the  house.     I  bought  all  the  materials  and  ordered  all  the  repairs  to  be  done. 

Q.  Was  it  also  a  part  of  your  duty  to  fit  up  the  boxes  when  required  for  any 
special  occasion  ? 

A.  I  always  did  it  myself  or  had  it  done. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  that  day  at  what  time  you  received  notice  of  the 
President's  intended  visit  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  distinctly.  It  was  in  the  morning,  about  10  o'clock.  I  was 
in  the  act  of  giving  a  ticket  to  the  messenger  myself  when  Mr.  J.  R.  Ford 
came  into  the  theatre  and  gave  him  the  ticket. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  there  was  a  rehearsal  that  day  ? 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  Do  you  know  at  what  time  it  commenced,  and  how  long  it  continued  % 

A.  I  think  it  commenced  about  11  o'clock.  That  was  the  hour  of  the 
call  of  rehearsal.     I  think  it  was    11,  or  a  few  minutes  before.     I   went   to 


TRIAL    OF    JOHX   H.    SURRATT.  61 


o 


the  Star  office  to  put  in  an  advertisement  for  the  coming  of  the  President, 
General  Grant  and  party  that  night. 

Q.  How  long  were  you  absent  ? 

A.  About  L5  minutes — just  time  to  walk  to  the  Star  office  and  back.  I 
returned  right  back  to  the  theatre.     It  was  my  duty  to  be  there. 

Q.  Was  the  rehearsal  going  on  when  you  returned. 

A.  It  had  just  commenced  wiieu  I  returned. 

Q.  State,  if  you  please,  whether  the  doors  leading  from  the  vestibule  into 
the  theatre  were  opened  or  closed. 

A.  There  was  one  door  leading  from  the  vestibule  into  the  theatre  which  was 
iised.  That  door  was  locked.  I  opened  the  doors  commonly  in  the  morning. 
On  this  morning  a  colored  woman  got  the  key  from  Mr.  Gilford,  to  clean  the 
place  up. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Did  she  get  the  keys  from  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Mr.  PiERREPOXT.  Then  you  need  not  tell  what  she  got  from  Mr.  Gifford. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Go  on  to  state  if  you  got  the  keys  ? 

A.  I  locked  the  door  when  she  was  done  cleaning.  It  was  about  nine  o'clock  ; 
when  I  opened  the  office  and  placed  the  key  in  the  money  drawer  in  the  office. 
It  remained  there.  No  one  else  was  in  the  office  but  myself  until  I  went  to 
the  Sfar  office  and  returned.  About  half  an  hour  after  that,  Mr.  Lutz,  Laura 
Keene's  husband,  came  there  to  go  into  the  rehearsal.     Generally 

Mr.  Pierrep(j\t.  You  need  not  state  what  was  done  generally. 

"Witness.  Mr.  Lutz  came  to  go  into  the  theatre.  I  took  the  key  and  un- 
locked the  door,  and  let  him  pass  in,  and  locked  it,  and  returned  to  the  office 
with  the  key.  The  door  was  open  two  or  three  minutes'  time  for  him  to  pass 
in.  I  put  the  key  back  in  the  office.  I  stood  in  the  door  with  the  key  in  my 
hand,  for  some  time,  talking  with  a  gentleman  who  was  with  me,  and  after- 
wards put  the  key  back  in  the  office. 

Q.  Now,  what  other  access  was  there  to  the  auditorium  of  the  theatre  except 
through  that  door? 

A.  None,  except  from  the  stage.  There  is  another  door  coming  in  on  to  the 
stage.  I  perhaps  ought  to  say  there  are  four  doors  entering  the  auditorium  ; 
but  the  other  doors  are  locked  on  the  inside,  and  there  is  no  way  of  opening 
them  from  the  outside  at  all.  They  are  very  large  doors  and  are  not  very 
handy  to  open  or  close.  They  have  no  handles  nor  anything  to  open  them 
with  except  just  the  lock. 

Q.  You  say  you  had  charge  of  the  front  part  of  the  theatre  ;  explain  what 
you  mean  by  the  front  part  I 

A.  The  auditorium — all  e.vcept  the  stage.  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  that, 
unless  there  was  something  wanted  to  be  fitted  up  for  use  on  it. 

Q.  Then,  the  private  boxes,  as  I  understand,  were  under  your  charge  ? 

A.  They  were. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  locks  being  out  of  order  on  the  doors 
of  the  two  boxes,  numbers  7  and  8  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  do ;  and  also  of  4  and  6. 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  what  you  know  upon  the  subject  of  these  locks — how 
you  know  they  were  nut  of  order,  and  how  they  were  ciut  of  order? 

A.  It  was  some  time  in  the  month'  of  March,  I  thinlc — it  was  during  Mrs. 
Bowers's  engagement — some  few  weeks  before  the   President's  assassination, 
Mr.  Merrick,  at  the  National  Hotel,  wliile  I  was  at  dinner,  ask^'d  me  to  secure 
him  seats  at  the  theatre,  which  I  did.     He  failed  to  come  until  after  the  curtain 
fell  at  the  end  of  the  first  act,  when  it  is  the  general  custom  of  the  theatre 

Mr.  Pierrefont.  You  need  not  state  any  general  custom. 


614  TRI4L  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Witness.  I  do  not  know  how  I  can  get  at  it  without  making  this  expla- 
nation. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  If  you  cannot  get  at  it  in  a  legal  way  you  cannot  get  at 
it  at  all. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  might  explain  how  he  came  to  know  of  these 
locks  being  out  of  order. 

Witness.  Well,  sir,  1  went  to  box  8  to  let  him  into  it.  It  was  locked. 
The  usher  had  the  key  and  was  out  of  the  theatre.  I  put  my  back  against  the 
door  and  my  foot  against  the  wall  and  burst  the  keeper  off  the  lock,  so  that  Mr. 
Merrick  and  his  company  walked  in. 

Q.  Now,  about  the  lock  to  7  ? 

A.  The  lock  to  7  had  been  broken  off  for  some  time. 

Q.  Can  you  state  whether  the  screws  to  the  lock  to  7  had  been  forced  off  or 
unscrewed  1 

A.  The  lock  had  been  forced. 

Q.   State  your  reasons  for  that  belief? 

A.  Because  the  screws  could  be  pushed  backwards  and  forwards,  and  would 
not  hold  in  the  wood-Avork. 

Q.  State  if  that  was  out  of  order  sometime  before  the  14th  of  April. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  were  out  in  front  of  the  theatre  that  night, 
at  any  time  'I 

A.  0,  yes  ;  several  times. 

Q.  Between  the  second  and  third  acts,  or  during  the  first  scene  of  the  third 
act,  do  you  remember  being  out  or  not  1 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  was  not.     I  was  in  the  office,  at  the  window,  selling  tickets. 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything,  of  your  own  knowledge,  of  placing  a  rocking-chair 
in  the  box  occupied  by  the  President  that  night  ? 

A.  I  ordered  a  black  man  we  had  at  the  theatre  to  go  to  a  room  and  get  the 
rocking-chair  and  put  it  into  the  box.     It  was  my  custom  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Plfc;RREPO.\T.  Please  do  not  tell  us  about  your  custom. 

Witness.  Well,  I  did  that,  that  day. 

Q.  Do  you  know  where  it  was  placed  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  that  he  placed  it  there.  I  did  not  follow  him  up.  It  was 
put  there  I  know,  for  I  saw  it  myself.  In  the  position  where  the  chair  was 
placed  the  box  is  very  narrow.  It  was  in  what  is  known  as  box  seven,  when  the 
partition  is  there.  The  partition  being  taken  out  between  boxes  seven  and 
eight  makes  what  is  termed  the  President's  box.  When  the  partition  was  out, 
behind  the  door  of  seven  we  always  placed  this  chair,  because  the  rockers  were 
very  long  and  the  box  was  very  narrow,  and  there  was  no  other  place  for  it  in 
the  box.  There  was  a  sofa  in  the  box  and  a  small  arm-chair,  a  rocking-chair, 
and  from  four  to  six  cane-seat  chairs.  That  is  the  reason  it  was  placed  behind 
that  door  rather  than  in  the  recess. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  examine  the  condition  of  that  box,  after  the  assassi- 
nation 1 

A.  After  I  had  been  on  the  stand,  in  the  trial. 
Q.  You  did  not  examine  it  the  next  day,  or  within  a  few  days  t 
A.  No,  sir.     I  was  sent  there  by  the  court  or  commission,  in  company  with 
other  gentlemen. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  prisoner  at  the  bar  before  1 
A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  I  understand  there  was  an  outer  door  leading  to  the  small  passage  into  the 
box,  that  there  were  two  doors  opening  from  that  into  boxes  seven  and  eight ; 
how  was  that  outer  door  fastened  't 
A.  It  never  had  any  lock  on  it. 
Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  it  had  any  latch,  or  anything  like  a  catch  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  615 

A.  It  had  no  latch. 

Q.  Nor  any  spring,  or  anything  of  that  sort  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  a  plain  door,  hung  upon  hinges. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  You  think  the  flistenings  to  that  lock  could  not  have  been  unscrewed  ? 

A.  I  know  it  was  not  unscrewed. 

Q.  Do  you  think  a  bar  was  fitted  in  to  fasten  the  door,  or  do  you  think  that 
was  not  done? 

A.  How  do  you  speak  of  being  fitted  in  ? 

Q.  To  fasten  the  door.  I  refer  to  the  bar  said  to  have  been  fitted  in  to  secure 
the  door  to  prevent  any  one  from  entering  the  box.  Do  you  think  that  was 
done  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say.  I  never  saw  the  bar.  I  saw  the  hole  in  the  wall  when  I 
was  sent  there  by  the  court. 

Q.  Did  you  look  at  the  lock  then  ? 

A.  I  looked  at  the  lock.     I  was  sent  there  for  that  purpose. 

Q.  How  did  you  find  the  screws  then  ? 

A.  In  the  keeper,  hanging  to  the  door. 

Q.  And  you  think  they  had  not  been  unscrewed,  or  any  preparation  made  ? 

A.  Xo,  sir. 

Q.  The  bar  you  did  not  see.  You  saw  the  rehearsal  commence,  at  what  hour 
did  you  say  1 

A.  At  eleven  o'clock,  as  near  as  I  can  tell. 

Q.  Then  it  did  not  commence  at  ten  1 

A.  Ko,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  pretty  sure  of  that  ? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  of  anything,  positively. 

Q.  Let  us  see  how  sure  yoti  are.  We  have  some  evidence  on  which  you  are 
sure.  (Remark  of  counsel  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  improper.)  Did  not 
this  rehearsal  commence  on  this  day  at  tea  o'clock  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  about  that  ? 

A.  I  am  sure,  for  Mr.  Phillips  was  sitting  in  the  office. 

Q.  You  need  not  give  your  reasons. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  the  witness  had  the  right  to  make  the  explanation. 

The  court  decided  it  was  not  proper  for  the  witness  to  give  reasons  unless 
he  required  some  explanation. 

Q.  Now  what  time  did  you  go  into  the  theatre  that  morning  1 

A.  Between  eight  and  nine  o'clock. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  came  in  ? 

A.  Went  to  the  office,  dusted  it  out,  as  I  generally  do. 

Q.  I  don't  know  what  you  generally  did,  I  am  talking  of  what  you  did  that 
morning. 

A.  That  was  my  work  to  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  having  done  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  these  things  you  have  been  tes- 
tifying about  1 

A.  What  particular  things  ? 

Q.  Any  of  them.  When  was  your  attention  first  called  to  any  of  the  things 
you  have  been  testifying  about  this  morning  ? 

A.  At  the  military  commission,  and  prior  to  that  before  Judge  Burnett. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  to  these  things  at  that  couri. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  think  so. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  at  that  court  that  the  rehearsal  commenced  at  ten  o'clock? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  asked.     I  said  it  commenced  about  eleven  o'clock. 


616  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  you  cannot  be  mistaken,  that  it  commenced  about 
eleven  o'clock  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  that  before  ? 

A.  No,  sii*. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  state  before,  at  what  time  it  did  commence  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  was  asked  the  question. 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  ten  o'clock  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell  where  I  was.     In  the  theatre, 

Q.  Where  were  you  at  eleven  o'clock  ] 

A.  In  the  office. 

Q.  You  remember  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  the  rehearsal  commence  1 

A.  I  cannot  positively  say  I  saw  it  commence.     I  think  it  had  not  commenced 
when  I  went  to  the  Star  office. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  commence  or  not  1 

A.  Not  particularly. 

Q.  I  am  not  asking  you  "particularly,"  I  am  asking  you  for  the  fact. 

A.  I  saw  the  rehearsal  going  on.     I  cannot  say  I  saw  it  commence. 

Q.  When  did  vou  see  it  going  on  ? 

A.  When  I  returned  from  the  Star  office,  at  eleven  o'clock,  or  fifteen  minutes 
after  eleven. 

Q.  What  was  the  rehearsal  1 

A.  The  rehearsal  was  "  The  American  Cousin." 

Q.  How  long  did  it  take  ? 

A.  About  two  hours,  I  think  that  rehearsal  took. 

Q.  Do  you  know  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  know  generally. 

Q.  Do  you  not  know  it  did  not  take  but  exactly  one  hour  and  a  half? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  know  anything  of  the  kind. 

Q.  Do  you  know  that  it  took  more  than  that  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that,  because  I  did  not  time  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  out  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  About  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  to  my  dinner. 

Q.   Was  that  the  first  time  you  went  out  of  the  theatre  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  was  in  there  all  the  time.     I  was  sick ;  I  had  the  neuralgia  in 
the  back  of  my  head. 

-.Q.  Where  were  you  when  yoix  were  sick  with  the  neuralgia  in  the  head  1 

A.  In  the  office,  there  at  the  theatre,  attending  to  my  business. 

Q.  You  did  not  have  the  arrangement  of  the  rehearsal,  and  you  had  no  part 
of  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  am  not  an  actor. 

Q.  You  had  nothing  to  do  about  the  machinery  of  the  stage,  or  play  in  any 
way  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  staid   in   the  office  in  consequence  of  your  being  sick  1 
A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not ;  that  was  my  place  to  stay.     I  did  not  stay  in  conse- 
quence of  being  sick  at  all ;  if  you  call  it  sickness.     1  had  the  neuralgia  in  my 
head. 

Q.  I  did  not  call  it  anything.     You  termed  it  sickness,  did  not  you? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  believe  I  did. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  whether  you  looked  on  to  the  stage  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  that? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  several  times. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  617 

Q.  Did  you  look  ou  the  stage  while  the  rehearsal  was  goiug  on  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  look  on  it  before  it  began  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  look  on  it  after  it  was  over  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  was  on  it  after  rehearsal. 

Q.  And  you  know  how  it  looked,  well  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  taking  that  desk  for  the  stage,  (illustrating  by  the  desks  of  the 
court  and  clerk,)  and  that  for  the  rear,  will  you  tell  us  what  was  in  the  rear  of 
the  stage  ? 

A.  A  big  door  back  to  the  alley. 

Q.  While  the  rehearsal  was  going  ou  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  a  big  door. 

Q.  Nothing  else? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  the  scenery  that  required  to  be  changed,  and  the  scenes  brought 
forward,  with  room  enough  between  each  for  persons  to  pass  between  them, 
leaving  a  space  perhaps,  of  six  feet  between. 

Q.  Did  they  not  slide  close  together  1 

A.  Not  close  together. 

Q.   When  the  rehearsal  ceased,  what  then  ? 

A.  They  were  pushed  back  in  their  place,  and  remained  until  the  play  com- 
menced. 

Q.  Some  of  these  scenes  were  shifted  several  times,  were  they  not  ? 

A.  They  were  slipped  backwards  and  forwards  in  their  grooves  several  times, 
not  shifted. 

Q.  What  were  the  scenes  made  of? 

A.  Canvas. 

Q.  Painted  on  cloth  ? 

A.  Yes,  painted. 

Q.  What  had  they  on  them  ? 

A.  That  would  rather  puzzle  me  to  describe.  There  were  general  scenes, 
chambers,  for  instance,  which  were  used  not  only  for  the  American  Cousin,  but 
for  various  plays. 

Q.  They  were  paintings  of  some  sort  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  they  were  moved  according  to  necessity  ? 

A.  They  were. 

Q.  Did  you  see  them  moved  that  day  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  I  did. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  how  often  they  were  moved  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  could  not  tell.     I  could  tell  you  by  looking  at  the  book. 

Q.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  book.     I  am  asking  you  for  your  knowledge  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  how  near  to  the  front  of  the  stage,  the  front  of  these 
scenes  were  brought,  or  slid  together  ? 

A.  From  the  footlights,  close  in  front  of  the  stage,  I  judge  the  first  scene  to 
be  about  twenty  feet  from  the  centre.     1  am  nut  positive. 

Q.  No?v,  will  you  tell  the  jury,  how  many  doors  that  theatre  had  in  front  ? 

A.  Do  you  mean  entrances  to  the  lobby,  or  auditorium  ? 

Q.  I  mean  entrances  to  any  part  of  the  main  building,  or  auditorium  ? 

A.  There  were  three. 

Q.  To  go  in  and  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  mean  to  go  in  and  out  at? 

A.  There  was  one. 

40 


618  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  tlicy  all  go  in  and  out,  at  that  door  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Entirely  at  that  door  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  went  out  there  while  the  play  was  going  on.    After  the  play 
was  over,  they  M-ent  out  and  in  at  four  doors — if  there  was  any  coming  in. 

Q.  I  ask  you  again  how  many  doors  there  were  entering  into  that  auditorium  1 

A.  There  were  four  doors ;  but  only  one  used  for  ordinary  purposes. 

Q.  You  say  there  were  four  doors  in  front.     Now  tell  how  many  side  doors 
to  enter  upon  the  stage. 

A.  One. 

Q.  Where  is  that  1 

A.  In  a  long  alley,  ahout  sixty  feet  from  Tenth  street,  where  it  enters  the 
building  and  leads  to  the  stage. 

Q.  That  alley  is  on  which  side  ? 

A.  Towards  Pennsylvania  avenue. 

Q.  The  same  alley  is  there  now  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  I  have  not  been  there  recently. 

Q.  You  enter  that  alley  and  come  in  at  the  side  of  the  stage  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  go  further  is  there  any  door  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  in  the  rear  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  many  ? 

A,  One  small  door  and  one  large  one  which  opens  the  whole  back  of  the 
theatre. 

Q.  Did  you  remove  the  partition  in  the  box,  or  help  remove  it,  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  it  done  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  ordered  it  to  be  done.     I  did  not  see  it  done. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  chair  placed  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  the  hole  made  in  the  plastering  where  that  bar  was  put  in  to 
fasten  the  door  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  see  anything  done  to  the  lock  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  When  was  the  first  time  you  went  out  of  the  office  that  day  1 

J^.  When  I  went  to  the  Star  office, 

Q.  Where  was  the  Star  office  1 

A.  On  the  Avenue,  above  Eleventh  street,  I  think.  I  went  there  about  half 
past  ten  or  towards  eleven  o'clock,  and  took  an  advertisement  written  for  the 
coming  of  the  President  and  his  party. 

Q.  You  went  to  the  Star  office  for  the  sole  purpose  of  taking  that  advertise- 
ment ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  take  the  advertisement  before  you  heard  of  the  President 
being  there  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  were  yoti  connected  with  this  theatre  ? 

A.  I  went  there  the  first  Monday  in  December,  previous  to  the  assassination. 

Q.  What  was  your  sole  business  there? 

A.  To  take  charge  of  the  wardrobes  and  of  the  apparatus,  and  to  take  charge 
of  the  front  of  the  house. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  taking  charge  of  the  front  of  the  house  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  619 

A.  Seeing  that  the  necessary  repciirs  were  made  and  attending  to  all  the  duties 
required  for  a  business  of  that  kind. 

Q.  Were  you  in  this  war? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  company  were  you  in  ? 

A.  I  commanded  a  company  mj'self. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  1 

A.  I  went  to  the  Valley  with  General  Pope. 

Q.  When  did  you  return  to  the  war  ? 

A.  Shortly  after  his  retreat  at  Bull  Run. 

Q.  Did  you  continue  in  it  afterwards  ? 

A.  Until  I  got  sick. 

Q.  When  were  you  taken  sick? 

A.  After  the  battle  of  Cedar  Mountain. 

Q.  Did  you  go  into  the  theatre  then  1 

A.  I  went  in  the  December  following ;  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  the  first  Monday 
in  December. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Were  you  fighting  on  the  rebel  side  ? 
A.  Me,  sir?    Not  much. 

William  0.  Baldwin,  physician,  residence,  Washington  city,  sworn  and 
examined  : 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  were  you  engaged  in  during  the  late  war  ? 

A.  I  was  a  medical  ofl5cer  in  the  army  from  1862  to  1S65. 

Q.  The  army  of  the  United  States  ? 

A.  The  army  of  the  United  States — none  other. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee,  a  witness  who  has  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  know  John  Lee,  who  was  a  detective  in  the  provost  marshal's  office  at 
the  time  I  was  examining  surgeon.  I  have  not  been  here  during  the  present 
trial. 

Q.  Did  you  know  John  Lee's  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  among 
the  people  with  whom  he  associated  ? 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  What  is  that  reputation — good  or  bad  ? 

A.  It  is  bad  among  the  gentlemen  around  the  office,  the  employes,  &c. 

Q.  From  that  general  reputation,  would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  I  would  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  If  he  should  tell  you  a  man  you  were  looking  for  had  gone  into  the  office 
of  the  Secretary  of  War,  would  you  believe  him  ? 

A.  I  would  ordinarily  believe  it. 

Q.  If  you  were  looking  after  any  person  and  he  should  say  he  had  gone  in 
there,  would  you  be  likely  to  go  in  to  the  place  pointed  out  ? 

A.  I  dare  say  I  would. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  tell  us  who  the  men  employed  about  the  office,  whom  you 
speak  of,  were — give  us  the  names  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember;  I  speak  of  common  report. 

Q.  Can  you  give  no  names  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 
Q.  Was  John  Lee  chief  detective  at  that  time  ? 


620  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  was  chief  detective  or  not.  He  was  chief  de 
tective  at  one  time  under  Major  O'Beirne. 

By  Mr.  PlFRREPOXT : 

Q.  How  many  officers  were  employed  in  that  office  ? 

A.  A  large  number  of  clerks.  There  were  a  good  many  employed.  I  do 
not  know  how  many.     I  was  examining  surgeon. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  tell  the  names  of  any  of  these  men  1 

A.  I  cannot. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  had  any  rivalries  or  quarrels  with  any  of 
them  1 

A.  1  do  not  know.  1  am  sure  there  was  never  any  between  him  and  myself. 
He  tried  to  make  fond  of  me. 

Q.  I  was  not  asking  of  any  rivalry  between  you  and  him,  but  between  him 
and  others  whom  you  have  heard  speak  of  him  ? 

A.  1  do  not  know  as  to  that. 

John  H.  Wise,  residence  Washington,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 
Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee,  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  knoAv  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  among  the  peo- 
ple with  whom  he  associates  ? 

A.  I  have  never  heard  that  questioned  until  this. 
Mr.  PiERREPONT  :  That  is  all  there  is  of  that. 

Cross-examined  by  the  DisTRKrr  Attorney  : 
Q.  Yon  have  been  living  in  this  city  a  long  time  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  are  very  well  acquainted  here  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  knew  John  Lee  well  ? 

A.  I  never  knew  him  until  he  got  into  the  provost  marshal's  office. 
Q.  You  knew  him  very  well  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  During  the  pursuit  of  the  men  charged  with  the  assassination  of  the  Presi- 
dent, did  you  meet  Lee  in  the  lower  part  of  Maryland,  or  in  Prince  George  county? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  At  that  time  did  Lee  say  to  you  that  he  did  not  know  John  H,  Surratt, 
and  had  never  seen  him  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  the  district  attorney.  No  ground  had  been  laid  to 
contradict  the  witness. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  it  was  a  question  directed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court  as 
to  whether  the  witness  should  be  recalled  for  further  examination.  The  court 
had  once  decided  this  witness  could  not  be  recalled  at  that  time,  but  the  circum- 
stances were  somewhat  diiferent  now,  inasmuch  as  the  character  of  this  witness 
had  already  been  impeached,  and  he  proposed  therefore  again  to  make  the  ap- 
plication to  the  court. 

The  Court  asked  whether  the  Avitness  having  his  character  impeached  would 
give  him  any  better  chance  of  explaining  in  regard  to  the  matter  in  which  it  was 
proposed  to  contradict  him  ?  and  said  the  question  could  not  be  asked. 

Mr.  Pierkepont  said  the  court  had  already  ruled  upon  this  question  now 
four  times,  and  he  submitted  that  counsel  should  not  be  allowed  to  repeat  the 
same  question  over  and  over  for  the  court  to  rule  upon. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.   SURRA.TT.  621 

Mr.  Merrick  said  they  had  a  right  to  present  such  evidence  as  they  thought 
proper,  and  to  make  a  record  for  their  exceptions  in  such  matter  as  they  thought 
most  expedient,  especially  under  the  law  organizing  this  court,  which  allows  a 
new  trial  to  come  before  the  court  at  the  general  term.  This  was  a  question 
directed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court ;  and  when  any  new  circumstances  arose 
changing  the  nature  of  the  application,  they  had  a  right  to  renew  the  applica- 
tion so  directed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court. 

The  Court  said  he  had  no  discretion  about  the  matter  in  regard  to  quefctions 
of  law  settled  by  the  law.  When  a  witness  was  to  be  impeached  by  proving 
that  he  had  made  declai'ations  contrary  to  those  made  on  the  stand,  his  attention 
while  on  the  stand  must  be  directed  to  such  declaratiuns,  giving  the  time  and 
place.  He  must  say  that  he  did  not  think  that  when  counsel  were  satisfied  they 
had  not  done  that  it  was  a  fair  course  of  catechising  the  witness,  when  they 
knew  the  foundation  had  not  been  laid. 

Mr.  Merrick  remarked  that  it  was  in  the  discretion  of  the  court  to  recall  the 
witness. 

V.  B.  MuxsoN,  clerk  in  the  War  Department,  residence  Washington,  sworn 
and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  were  you  engaged  during  the  war  ? 

A.  In  the  army.  I  served  a  term  of  three  years,  and  subsequently  was  em- 
ployed in  the  office  of  the  provost  marshal  of  this  district,  as  a  clerk. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  Lee,  a  witness  who  testified  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  do,  slightly. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  reputation  among  the  men  with  whom  he  associates  for 
truth  and  veracity  ? 

A.  I  know  his  general  reputation. 

Q.  What  is  that  general  reputation  as  a  man  of  truth  ? 

A.  It  is  bad. 

Q.  Would  you,  from  that  general  reputation,  from  what  people  generally  say 
of  him,  believe  him  on  his  oath  1 

A.  Not  in  a  case  of  life  and  death.     In  trivial  matters  I  might  accept  his  word. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  What  part  of  the  War  Department  are  you  in  ? 

A.  The  Adjutant  General's  office. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Calvert,  who  testified  the  other  day  ] 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Are  you  in  the  same  department  with  him  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q,  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  about  this  matter  ? 

A.  Not  particularly. 

Q.  Generally  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  a  few  words  have  passed  on  it  now  and  then. 

Q.  You  say  you  knew  Lee.     What  business  had  you  done  with  him  1 

A.  I  was  engaged  in  the  general  business  with  him,  in  the  same  office.  My 
business  was  paying  rewards  for  the  ai*rest  of  deserters.  Lee  was  a  detective, 
and  at  one  time  was  supposed  to  have  nominal  control  over  all  the  detectives  in 
the  office. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  see  him  in  the  office  on  that  business  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  he  was  there  at  the  time  I  came  to  the  office  or 
not.  I  was  there  employed  as  a  clerk  for  nine  months,  from  August  10,  1864, 
until  May.  1865. 

Q.  During  the  time  you  were  doing  business  there  you  heard  of  this  bad 
reputation  ? 


622  TKIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  When  he  came  there  to  make  a  report  of  anything  did  you  believe  what 
he  said  ? 

A.  He  was  not  under  oath  then.     It  was  not  my  business. 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  believed  it  ? 

A.  I  cannot  answer  that  question  because  it  was  not  my  business  to  take  what 
he  said  as  truth  or  untruth. 

Q.  I  ask  you  for  your  belief. 

A.  I  believed  him  generally  in  business  matters. 

Q.  Was  he  under  oath  ? 

A.  No,  not  then. 

Q.  Do  you  think  he  would  be  less  likely  to  tell  the  truth  when  under  oath 
than  if  he  was  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  about  it  ? 

A.  His  character  and  general  reputation  being  bad,  I  should  say  he  would 
not. 

Q.  You  think  he  would  be  more  likely  not  to  tell  the  truth  under  oath  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

Q.  Then  why  did  you  say  so  just  now  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  he  would  tell  a  lie. 

Q.  Woiild  you  believe  him  when  he  was  under  oath  1 

A.  On  trivial  matters  perhaps  I  would. 

Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  "perhaps  1 " 

A.  I  mean  that  I  would  accept  his  evidence,  perhaps,  in  trivial  matters. 

Q.  What  do  you  call  "trivial  matters  1 " 

A.  In  every  day  matters ;  but  as  a  member  of  the  jury — 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  You  need  not  state  what  you  would  do  then. 

Mr.  Merrick  asked  that  the  witness  might  be  allowed  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  had  no  right  to  put  himself  in  the  shoes  of  the 
juror. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  he  understood  the  witness  had  the  right  to  explain  and 
that  he  supposed  he  might  state  that  certain  responsibility  being  upon  him  would 
prevent  him  from  believing  this  man. 

The  Court.  Go  on  with  your  questions. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 
-Q.  You  say  in  ordinary  matters  you  would  believe  him  1 

A.  Perhaps  I  would  in  matters  of  general  business  ;  I  would  believe  him  if  I 
had  business  with  him. 

Q.  That  is  if  he  was  not  on  oath.  If  he  was  on  oath  would  you  believe  him 
iu  general  business  1 

A.  Of  course  I  would. 

Q.  Now  if  you  were  in  careful  pursuit  of  one  of  the  officers  of  your  department, 
General  Townsend,  for  instance,  and  wanted  to  find  him  out,  and  on  coming 
from  the  Treasury  department  you  met  John  Lee,  who  stated  to  you  that  he  had 
just  gone  into  the  White  House,  would  you,  on  that  statement,  go  into  the  Presi- 
dent's house  to  find  him  ? 

A.  With  no  other  evidence  to  the  contrary  I  would. 

Q.  If  he  should  tell  you  he  saw  General  Townsend  before  Wilkrds'  that 
morning  talking  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  would  you  believe  him  ? 

A.  Generally,  I  would. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 
A.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  woiild  believe  him  upon  matters  of  gen- 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  623 

eral  business,  if  there  was  no  responsibility  resting  upon  your  shoulders,  and  if 
there  was  any  great  responsibility  would  you  not  ? 

A.  I  would  not. 

Q,  Whether  imder  oath  or  not  ? 

A.  Whether  under  oath  or  not. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  If  two  years  ago  Mr.  Lee  was  in  pursuit  of  certain  persons  and  never  said 
anything  about  being  acquainted  with  those  persons  until  two  years  afterwards, 
and  at  that  time  said  he  knew  them  very  well,  would  you  believe  him  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepout  as  improper.     Objection  sustained.) 

Lemuel  J.  Orme,  farmer  and  merchant,  residence  Prince  George  county, 
Maryland,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  T.  Tibbet,  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  know  him. 

Q.  Did  he  reside  in  Prince  George's  county  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  residing  there  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  when  he  was  a  boy.     He  resided  there  up  to  1SG2  or  1863. 

Q.  Where  has  he  been  since  then  ? 

A.  He  resided  there  from  1865  up  to  last  fall. 

Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  among  the 
people  with  whom  he  is  acquainted  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  know  what  it  is. 

Q.  Is  it  good  or  bad  ? 

A.  Very  bad. 

Q.  From  what  you  know  of  his  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity,  would  you 
believe  him  on  his  oath? 

A.  Xo,  indeed,  sir.     (Laughter.) 

The  court  cautioned  the  audience  against  indulging  in  any  such  levity  on 
such  an  occasion  as  this. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  become  acquainted  with  Mr.  Tibbet  ? 

A.  When  he  was  a  boy  8  or  10  years  old. 

Q.  How  near  did  you  live  to  him  1 

A.  He  was  born  and  raised  in  the  same  neighborhood  until  he  went  to  the 
war. 

Q.  What  side  did  he  take  in  the  war  ? 

A.  He  first  took  sides  one  way  and  then  the  other.     He  started  out  as  a 
sympathizer  with  the  southern  people,  and  afterwards  he  turned  up  a  strong 
Union  man,  as  the  term  is. 

Q.  Which  side  did  you  take  ? 

A.  I  tried  to  stand  as  near  between  the  two  as  I  could. 

Q.  Were  you  able  to  stand  that  way  ? 

A   I  was  indeed. 

Q.  When  he  was  taking  the  southern  side  his  reputation  was  pretty  good, 
was  it  not  ? 

A.  Not  since  he  has  been  a  man. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anybody  speak  against  his  character  for  truth  at  all  before 
that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  heard  it  before  and  since.  I  do  not  know  that  made 
hira  any  better  or  worse. 


624  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Before  he  was  a  Union  man  wont  you  tell  who  you  heard  speak  against 
his  chai'acter  for  truth. 

A.  I  heard  my  brother,  George  E.  Orme. 

Q.  Who  else  before  he  took  the  Union  side  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  anything  except  in  reference  to  business  transactions.  I 
was  a  witness  in  the  case  myself. 

Q.  Your  brother  spoke  of  him  in  relation  to  that  pi'osecution  did  he  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  it  was  altogether  about  that  transaction.  I  have  heard 
him  say  he  was  a  very  bad  man. 

Q.  Did  your  brother  speak  about  that  transaction  1 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Q.  Your  brother  said  he  was  not  a  man  of  truth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  said  he  was  a  man  you  could  not  depend  on  for  anything. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  that  you  have  heard  anybody  else  speak  before  he 
became  a  Union  man  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  speak  of  any  person  except  my  brother.  I  do 
not  like  to  name  a  person  unless  I  can  be  positive. 

Q.  Your  brother  had  a  difficulty  with  him,  had  he  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  you  would  call  it  a  difficulty.  He  had  some  transac- 
tion. He  would  not  pay  him.  Tibbets  tried  to  swindle  him  out  of  what  he  owed 
him  before  the  war. 

Q.  This  was  before  he  tried  to  be  a  Union  man  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  any  one  speak  well  of  him,  I  never  heard  a  man  speak  of 
him  as  a  gentleman  in  my  life. 

Q.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  claimed  to  be  "  a  gentleman  "  or  not.  I  want 
to  know  whether  you  ever  heard  any  one  before  he  joined  the  Union  side  speak 
of  his  reputation  for  truth. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  name  any  one. 

Q.  Then  that  reputation  was  made  up  by  what  your  brother  said  ? 

A.  It  was  his  general  character  and  the  company  the  man  kept  that  made 
it  up. 

Q.  But  you  never  heard  anybody  say  anything  at  all  1 

A.  I  could  not  be  positive  about  that.     1  cannot  recollect  back  that  far. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  never  heard  anybody  speak  of  his  reputation 
for  truth  except  your  brother  before  the  war  1 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  individuals  at  this  time.  I  have  never  heard  any  man 
speak  well  of  him  since  he  has  been  grown  up.  No  man  in  business  would  trust 
him  for  anything. 

Q.  And  he  has  had  the  same  character  ever  since  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

A.  So  far  as  I  know  he  has  had  just  the  same  character.     I  do  not  think  the 
fact  of  his  going  into  the  army  changed  his  character  one  way  or  the  other. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  You  testified  on  the  conspiracy  trial,  did  you  not? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  called  for  the  defence  1 

A.  From  the  way  I  was  examined,  I  judge  they  called  me  about  Mr.  Thomas. 
I  suppose  I  was  called  by  the  defence. 

Q.  You  came  then,  to  swear  against  a  man's  character  for  truth,  did  you  not  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.  Objection  overruled.  Mr.  Bradley 
desired  an  objection  to  be  noted.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  was  on  trial  when  you  were  called  as  a  witness  : 

A.  I  did  not  know  either  one  personally. 

Q.  Do  you  know  their  names  1 

A.  I  heard  their  names. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHM  H.  SURRATT.  625 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  name  of  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  What  did  you  testify  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  testify  against  the  good  character  for  truth  and  veracity  of  this 
Mr,  Thomas  1 

A.  I  was  not  asked  about  the  good  character  of  anybody. 

Q,  The  bad  character  then  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did  testify  to  the  very  bad  character  of  Mr.  Thomas. 

Q.  You  testified  to  that  ? 

A.  Indeed,  I  did.  I  suppose  they  called  me  to  testify  concerning  his  evidence 
and  the  character  of  the  man  generally. 

"William  J.  Watson,  farmer  and  planter,  residence  Prince  George's  county 
Maryland,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  T.  Tibbet  ? 

A.  I  do  ;  he  is  a  son  of  my  close  neighbor. 

Q.  Are  you  his  uncle  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  neither  by  ties  of  blood  nor  affinity. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  William  J.  Watson  ? 

A.  I  know  of  no  other.     If  there  is  any  other  I  do  not  know  him. 

Q.   How  long  have  you  lived  there  '{ 

A.  I  have  lived  not  more  than  two  miles  from  the  place  where  I  now  reside 
since  I  was  born. 

Q.  You  say  this  Tibbet  is  no  relation  of  blood  or  afiinity  to  you  ? 

A.  I  am  not  his  uncle  by  blood  or  affinity.  I  have  understood  that  my  grand- 
mother and  his  great-grandmother  were  cousins. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tibbet  ever  tell  you  that  ]\[rs.  Surratt  said  she  would  give  a 
thousand  dollars  to  any  one  who  would  kill  Lincoln  ? 

A.  Never. 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrcpont  on  the  ground  that  the  foundation  had 
not  been  laid  to  contradict  the  witness,  Tibbet. 

Mr.  Merrick  read  from  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  Tibbet,  to  show  that  the 
foundation  had  been  laid. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  withdrew  his  objection. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  any  conversation  with  Tibbet  about  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  The  next  to  the  last  time  he  was  in  my  neighborhood,  I  did.  It  was 
somewhere  about  the  first  of  April  of  the  present  year, 

Q.  What  did  he  say  1 

A.  There  was  a  conversation  which  took  place  in  regard  to  a  quarrel  that 
was  going  on  in  the  House  of  Representatives  between  General  Butler  and  Mr. 
Bingham,  of  Ohio.  He  took  sides  Avith  General  Butler  in  the  argument.  I  took 
sides  with  Mr.  Bingham.  I  think  that  in  the  course  of  the  argument  he  said 
that  she  had  been  illegally  executed.  That  is  the  impression  on  my  mind.  He 
took  sides  with  General  Butler  and  said  she  was  innocent. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiNT  asked  if  there  was  anything  in  the  examination  of  the  witness, 
Tibbet,  to  warrant  these  questions. 

The  Court  said  that  inasmuch  as  this  conversation  had  been  referred  to  in 
that  examination  it  was  a  proper  subject  of  contradiction. 

Q.  Do  you  know  ]\Ir.  Tibbet's  general  character  1 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  had  promised  the  witness  that  question  should  not  be 
asked  in  consideration  of  his  relations  with  the  father  of  the  witness,  Tibbet. 

Mr.  PiERREPOiNT  insisted  that  the  question  should  be  asked. 

The  Court  replied  that  the  counsel  could  not  be  compelled  to  ask  any  question 
if  they  did  not  choose  to  ask  it. 


626  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Were  you  examined  on  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  testified  there. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Tibbet  ever  call  you  uncle  ? 

A.  Never  that  I  know  of ;  he  always  called  me  Mr.  Watson.  There  are 
young  men  there  who  on  account  of  my  age  call  me  uncle,  but  I  do  not  kno'^' 
that  he  ever  did. 

Q.  Men  to  whom  you  were  not  uncle  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  men  to  whom  I  was  not  uncle. 

Q.  They  pretty  generally  down  there  called  you  "Uncle  Watson,"  did  they 
not? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  not  generally  ;  some  of  them  did. 

Q.  What  was  your  usual  title  ? 

A.  "Major"  is  my  general  title. 

Q.  Are  you  a  "major?" 

A.  No,  sir;   I  never  was  a  major. 

Q.  In  this  conversation  you  speak  of  you  took  sides  with  Mr.  Bingham ;  you 
said  you  thought  Mrs.  Surratt  was  guilty,  did  you? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  I  think  so  yet.  Not  from  anything  I  know  about  it,  but 
so  far  as  the  testimony  was  brought  on  that  case,  I  think  so. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  witness  Tibbet's  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity 
in  the  neighborhood  where  he  lives  ? 

The  Witness  said  it  was  understood  he  should  not  be  asked  that  question. 
They  were  born  within  two  miles  of  each  other,  and  he  hoped  it  would  not  be 
pressed. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  objected  to  the  question.  It  was  not  in  response  to  any- 
thing brought  out  on  the  cross-examination. 

The  Court  sustained  the  objection. 

Mr.  Merrick  said  that  under  the  ruling  of  the  court  the  witness  could  step 
down  from  the  stand,  and  he  then  had  the  right  to  re-call  him.  He  therefore 
asked  the  witness  to  step  down;  which  the  witness  did,  was  recalled  and  the 
question  repeated  to  him. 

Witness.  I  know  it  but  I  do  not  wish  to  state  it. 

Mr.  Merrick.  We  cannot  help  that.  Public  duty  is  superior  to  private 
feeling. 

The  Witness.  I  do  not  wish  to  answer  it  on  account  of  my  feelings  for  his 
father. 

Question  insisted  on. 

A.  I  must  say  that  it  is  bad. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  know  his  father  pretty  well  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  know  him  to  be  a  very  fine  man. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  mother? 

A.  Yes,  I  know  his  mother.  I  am  intimately  acquainted  with  her.  I  see 
them  nearly  every  day. 

Q.  Do  you  want  to  say  anything  about  her  good  character  ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  improper. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  had  not  asked  the  question.  The  witness  had 
volunteered  to  state  the  good  character  of  the  father. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  it  was  the  duty  of  tlie  counsel  to  have  stopped  him. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  he  did  not  stop  a  witness  on  cross  examination. 

Objection  overruled. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  will  say  everything  for  her  good  character. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  627 

Q.  Now  tell  us  who  you  ever  heard  say  that  Tibbet's  character  for  truth  and 
veracity  was  bad, 

A.  I  have  heard  B.  J.  Naylor ;  I  have  hoard  George  E.  Orme,  and  I  believe 
I  have  heard  nearly  every  man  in  that  neighborhood.  I  heard  his  uncle  tell 
me  in  this  city  on  last  Saturday  afternoon  at  his  own  door,  that  he  would  not 
believe  anything  he  said. 

Q.  Was  this  uncle  on  the  same  side  with  him  during  the  war  ? 

A.  He  was  in  the  federal  army ;  whether  he  was  on  the  same  side  in  politics 
or  not,  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  In  this  conversation  you  had  with  Mr.  Tibbet,  you  told  him  you  believed 
Mrs.  Surratt  was  guilty] 

A.  I  did ;  I  told  him  I  believed  she  was  guilty ;  and  I  think  that  every 
man 

Mr.  Merrick.  No  matter  what  you  have  said  outside. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 
Q.  Although  Mr.  Tibbet's  father  is  an  excellent  man  and  his  mother  an  ex- 
cellent woman  that  does  not  affect  your  judgment  of  the  character  of  this  son  ? 
A.  No,  sir;  he  has  brothers  of  as  good  character  as  the  father  and  mother. 

Benjamin  J.  Naylor,  residence  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland,  sworn 
and  examined. 

By  Mr,  Merrick: 

Q.  How  far  from  William  J.  Watson's  do  you  live  ? 

A.  In  the  same  neighborhood,  about  half  a  mile  apart. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Farming. 

Q.  Do  you  know  J.  T.  Tibbet,  who  was  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;   I  know  him. 

Q.  Did  he  live  generally  in  that  neighborhood  ? 

A.  He  formerly  lived  there,  until  a  short  time  ago. 

Q.  Does  his  father  live  in  that  neighborhood  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  John  T.  Tibbet's  general  character  for  tnith  among  the 
people  who  know  him  down  there  ? 

A.  It  was  said  to  be  bad  in  my  neighborhood. 

Q.  From  his  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity  would  you  believe  him 
on  oath  ? 

A.  From  what  other  people  say  of  it  I  would  not. 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  If  he  was  to  come  and  tell  you  any  fact  which  he  had  seen,  would  you 
believe  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  would  not. 

Q.  If  he  should  come  down  there  and  tell  you,  for  instance,  that  he  had  seen 
Mr.  Bradley,  and  that  Mr.  Bradley  wanted  you  to  come  up  here  and  be  a 
witness  ] 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  would  not.     I  would  not  believe  anything  he  said. 

Q.  If  you  were  away  from  home  anywhere,  a  mile  in  the  country,  and  Mr. 
Tibbet  were  to  come  to  you 

Mr.  Merrick  interposed  to  ask  the  ruling  of  the  court  as  to  the  form  of  ques- 
tions the  counsel  was  putting.  He  thought  he  should  be  limited  in  his  specula- 
tive inquiries  to  the  same  kind  of  questions  required  to  be  put  on  the  examina- 
tion in  chief,  simply  as  to  what  the  witness  knows  from  his  general  character 
for  truth  and  reputation. 

The  Court  said  he  thought  the  witness  understood  that  to  be  the  form  of 
the  question. 


628  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  resumed.  If  you  were  in  the  country,  a  mile  from  your  Louse,  and  Mr. 
Tibbet  Avere  down  there  and  should  tell  you  that  your  wife  had  been  taken 
suddenly  very  ill,  from  what  you  know  of  him  and  his  reputation,  would  you  be- 
lieve him  and  would  you  go  home,  or  would  you  not  pay  any  attention  to  him  ? 

A.  If  I  was  as  near  by  as  that  it  would  not  be  much  trouble  for  me  to  go. 

Q.  If  you  were  two  miles  away  would  you  go  ? 

A.  I  would  not  go. 

Q.  I  do  not  know  anything  about  your  relatives  and  will  therefore  take  some 
other  subject.  Perhaps  you  would  not  go  at  all.  If  you  heard  that  your  house 
was  on  fire  would  you  ? 

A.  Not  if  it  were  two  miles  away ;  for  it  would  be  burned  down  before  I 
could  get  there. 

Q.  Suppose  you  were  half  a  mile  away  ? 

A.  If  I  were  half  a  mile  away,  I  could  see  the  flame  and  could  tell  for  myself. 

Q.  Suppose  you  were  behind  a  hill  so  that  you  could  not  see  the  flames, 
what  would  you  do  ? 

A.  It  would  not  be  much  trouble  to  walk  up  to  the  top  of  the  hill. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  walk  up  the  hill  ? 

A.  I  think  it  likely  I  would  take  that  trouble. 

Q.  On  what  he  told  you  ? 

A.  It  would  not  be  much  trouble  to  walk  up  the  hill,  and  the  biggest  story- 
teller in  the  world  might  sometimes  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  You  think,  then,  that  notwithstanding  what  you  know  of  his  reputation,  that 
in  ordinary  matters  you  would  act  upon  what  he  told  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  think  I  would  from  his  general  character. 

George  E.  Orme,  residence  Prince  George's  county,  Maryland,  sworn  and 
examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  Do  you  live  near  the  residence  of  William  J.  Watson  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ? 

A.  I  was  born  and  raised  there  and  lived  there  until  1847.  I  lived  in 
Washington  from  that  time  until  1857.     I  have  lived  there  ever  since. 

Q.  Do  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  John  T.  Tibbet,  who  was  a  witness 
in  this  case  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  was  raised  not  far  from  my  father's. 

Q.  Does  his  father  live  near  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  state  to  the  jury  whether  or  not  you  know  his  general  character 
for  truth  and  veracity — what  people  generally  say  of  him  ? 

A.  It  was  very  bad  :  that  was  their  general  talk  in  the  neighborhood  before 
I  left  there. 

Q.  From  his  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity  would  you  believe  him 
on  oath  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  difficulty  with  him  ? 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Never  had  any  trade  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  used  to  deal  with  me  when  I  kept  store. 

Q.  Did  not  he  refuse  to  pay  youl 

A.  I  got  the  money.     He  always  said  he  would  pay  me. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  trouble  about  it  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  629 

A.  I  attached  the  money  after  he  left  there. 

Q.  The  first  time  ? 

A.  That  was  some  time  ago,  four  or  five  years  ago,  I  think. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  trouble  about  it  ? 

A.  Nothing,  I  only  gave  it  to  an  officer. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  any  about  it  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  had  left  there. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  anything  about  that  transaction  ? 

A.  It  was  talked  about  iu  the  neighborhood  generally. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  about  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  talked  about  Tibbet. 

Q.  Did  you  take  the  same  side  with  him  in  the  war? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  Tibbet  was  in  the  army.     I  was  not. 

Q.  Which  side  did  you  sympathize  with  ? 

A.  I  was  opposed  to  secession  very  much,  but  I  was  opposed  to  coercion. 

Q.  You  were  against  putting  down  the  rebellion  by  arms  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did  not  like  to  see  fighting  going  on. 

Q.  You  objected  to  that  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  did.     I  thought  they  had  better  settle  it. 

Q.  When  Tibbet  took  the  Union  side,  you  felt  somewhat  hostile  to  him  ? 

A.  Not  for  that,  I  did  not. 

Q.  You  did  for  something  1 

A.  Nothing,  only  I  had  a  disrespect  for  the  man.  His  general  conduct  was 
bad.  I  could  not  respect  him  as  a  gentleman.  I  had  nothing  against  him  as  a 
man. 

Q.  When  did  he  take  the  Union  side  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  was  rather  that  way  all  the  time;  I  do  not  know.  His  father 
was  a  blacksmith,  and  he  used  to  be  a  blacksmith.  His  father  is  a  very  honest 
old  fellow  and  good  citizen.  I  had  work  done  down  there,  and  this  young  ma-i 
was  there.  I  never  heard  of  his  being  out  of  the  neighborhood  up  to  that  time. 
He  di'ove  a  stage  for  a  little  while  and  then  went  in  the  army. 

Q.  You  did  not  join  either  army  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  But  your  sympathies  were  against  coercion  ? 

A.  Well,  if  I  had  had  my  say  I  think  I  should  have  settled  it  without  fight- 
ing.    1  was  opposed  to  secession  as  ranch  as  any  man  could  be. 

Q.  And  you  were  also  opposed  to  coercion  ? 

A.  I  was  opposed  to  fighting.  I  thought  it  could  be  settled.  1  always 
believed  it  could  from  the  commencement  of  it ;  and  I  believe  it  would  be  better 
to  settle  it  in  that  way  than  to  fight. 

Q.  You  were  not  a  witness  on  the  conspiracy  trial  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not.     I  was  summoned,  I  believe. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  You  stated  to  the  counsel  that  you  did  not  consider  Tibbet  a  g-entleman. 
Did  that  make  any  difference  in  your  estimation  of  his  character  for  truth  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  there  was  never  any  difference  between  us  as  far  as  being  friendly 
with  me  was  concerned.  He  was  just  as  friendly  as  my  brother.  I  believe  now 
if  I  were  a  candidate  in  that  district  he  would  vote  for  me. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  if  there  was  any  change  in  the  estimation  of  his  character 
in  the  neighborhood  after  he  took  the  Union  side  1 

A.  The  longer  he  staid  the  Avorse  he  got  as  long  as  he  staid  there. 

Q.  How  did  he  get  worse  1 

A.  He  got  worse  iu  the  habit  of  telling  lies. 

Q.  Who  have  you  heard  speak  of  his  character  ? 


630  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  have  heard  several ;  I  have  heard  Mr.  "Watson ;  I  have  heard  Lemuel 
Orme. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  them  say  he  was  not  a  man  of  truth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  You  have  just  stated  to  counsel  on  the  other  side  that  he  was  as  friendly 
to  you  as  a  brother  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  we  never  had  any  diflPerence  to  my  recollection  ;  he  was  just  as 
friendly  as  a  brother.  He  came  to  me  the  night  before  he  left  and  asked  me  to 
give  him  a  dollar.  Of  course  I  did  not  think  as  much  of  Tibbets  as  I  would  of 
my  brother ;  but  as  far  as  doing  an  injury  is  concerned,  I  would  not  do  him  an 
injury. 

Q.  Were  you  and  he  friendly,  as  brothers  ? 

A.  What  I  mean  was,  when  I  would  meet  him  we  would  meet  as  friendly  as 
brothers.     He  would  come  up  ^nd  speak  to  me. 

Q.  Did  you  meet  him  often  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  when  he  was  at  his  father's  shop  he  used  to  shoe  my  horses. 

Q.  How  long  did  this  friendship  as  brothers  continue  1 

A.  Until  the  night  he  left  there. 

Q.  When  did  he  leave  there  ? 

A.  Some  time  last  fall. 

Q.  And  you  were  as  friendly  with  him  as  brothers  up  to  last  fall.  When  you 
say  friendly  as  brothers,  do  you  mean  you  associated  with  him  as  a  brother,  or 
that  you  had  kindly  feelings  for  him  ? 

A.  I  mean  that  when  I  would  go  there  to  get  business  done  at  the  blacksmith 
shop,  there  was  no  ill  feeling — that  we  had  no  personal  ill  feeling  towards  each 
other. 

The  court,  at  this  point,  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

Francis  A.  Ward  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  State  where  you  reside. 

A.  In  the  lower  part  of  Prince  George's  county,  at  Horse  Head. 

Q.  In  the  neighborhood  of  Mr.  Watson's  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  you  know  John  T.  Tibbet,  a  witness  in  this  case  1 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  know  his  general  character  among  the  people 
with  whom  he  associates  for  truth  and  veracity. 

A.  I  do  ;  it  is  bad. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not,  from  his  general  character,  from  what  you  have  heard 
said  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth,  you  would  believe  him  under  oath. 

A.  I  would  not  like  to  do  it. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  live  ? 
A.  At  Horse  Head,  Maryland. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  before  the  military  commission  that  tried  the  con- 
spirators ? 
A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  were  you  examined  upon  then  ? 
A.  In  reference  to  the  character  of  Thomas. 
Q.  You  swore  agamst  his  character,  didn't  you  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  631 

A.  I  conld  not  swear  otherwise. 

Q.  You  did  swear  against  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  of  those  persons  who  were  tried  at  the  conspiracy  trial? 

A.  I  was  slightly  acquainted  with  Doctor  Mudd. 

Q.  He  is  the  only  one  you  knew  1 

A.  He  is. 

Q.  How  near  do  you  live  to  Tibbet's  father  ? 

A.  About  two  miles. 

Q.  You  would  not  believe  anything  that  Tibbet  said,  from  his  reputation  ? 

A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  should  tell  you  that  your  horse  had  got  out  of  your  lot  into  your 
neighbor's  lot,  you  would  not  go  out  after  it,  would  you  ? 

A.  I  might ;    but  I  would  not  know  whether  he  was  telling  the  truth  or  not. 

Q.  His  statement  wouldn't  induce  you  to  go  out  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  would  not  have  any  regard  for  anything  he  might  say  regarding  any 
ordinary  matter. 

A.  No,  six*. 

Bernard  Henze  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  State  where  you  reside  ? 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  1 

A.  Manager  of  Metropolitan  Ilall. 

Q.  Do  you  now  manage  that  Metropolitan  Hall. 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  Do  you  own  the  property? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Lease  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  where  you  were  residing  and  what  you  were  doing  in  April,  18G5. 

A.  In  1865, 1  was  carrying  on  the  same  business  that  I  do  now. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Keeping  a  concert  saloon. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  whereabouts  the  Metropolitan  Hall  is  located. 

A.  Right  next  door  to  the  Star  office,  on  D  street  between  Eleventh  and 
Twelfth  streets. 

Q.  Does  D  street  there  front  on  the  avenue  ? 

A.  It  does. 

Q.  Does  ^Metropolitan  Hall  look  out  immediately  on  the  avenue  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  business  is  done  at  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.  Well,  theatrical  performing ;  the  same  style  of  performance  as  used  to  be 
had  at  the  Canterbury. 

Q.  Had  you  cliarge  of  Metropolitan  Hall  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  not  in  the  city  on  that  day ;  I  was  in  Philadelphia. 

Q.  Was  the  hall  in  your  possession  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Being  run  under  your  control  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q,  In  whose  charge  did  you  give  the  direction  of  the  hall  when  you  left  to 
go  to  Philadelphia? 

A.  Under  the  control  of  three  men :  my  own  brother,  Martin  Henze,  George 
Nackmann,  and  Officer  Voss. 


632  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  at  what  time  you  went  to  Philadelphia  ? 

A.  On  the  Sunday  before. 

Q.  When  did  you  come  back  ? 

A.  I  believe  on  the  17th  or  18th  ;  I  am  not  sure,  or  the  week  after. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrbpont  : 

Q.  What  was  the  number  of  the  entrance  on  D  street  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  number  at  all.  It  is  right 
next  door  to  the  Star  office. 

Q.  There  is  no  entrance  on  the  avenue  ? 

A.  The  enti-ance  is  on  D  street  directly  facing  the  avenue. 

Q.  On  what  street  is  the  front  of  the  hall  ? 

A.  On  D  street. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  There  is  nothing  between  the  hall  and  Pennsylvania  avenue  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  there  is  a  kind  of  square  there. 

Martin  Henze  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Philadelphia,  and  also  in  Washington. 

Q.  Where  were  you  residing  and  doing  business  in  April,  1S65? 

A.  In  my  brother's  place. 

Q.  Where  was  your  brother's  place  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  The  Metropolitan  Hall. 

Q.  Where  is  the  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.  On  Twelfth  street. 

Q.  Fronting  on  what  street  ? 

A.  On  D  street. 

Q.  Does  it  also  front  any  other  street,  or  is  there  anything  between  it  and  the 
avenue  1 

A.  It  looks  right  out  on  the  avenue. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  your  brother  going  to  Philadelphia — going  north  any- 
where in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  whose  charge  did  he  leave  the  hall  when  he  went  away  ? 

A.  He  left  it  in  charge  of  Mr.  Nackmanu  and  myself,  and  the  officer  who  had 
charge  to  keep  order  there. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  or  not  there  was  any  performance  in  that  hall  on 
the  afternoon  of  Friday,  the  14th  of  April,  1865. 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q,  Could  there  have  been  any  there  without  your  knowing-  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  there  all  the  time  1 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  What  time  does  your  performance  generally  begin  at  the  hull  ? 

A.  We  have  a  rehearsal  three  times  a  week,  Monday,  Wednesday,  and 
Saturday.  In  the  evening  the  show  commenced  at  about  quarter  to  eight 
o'clock,  and  lasted  until  quarter  of  twelve  o'clock. 

Q.  State  whether  between  the  hours  of  two  and  five  on  Friday  afternoon, 
the  14th  of  April,  1865,  there  was  any  dancing  or  performance  going  on 
at  that  hall  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  kind  of  tables  are  there  in  that  hall  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  633 

A.  All  square  tables. 

Q.  Are  there  any  round  tables  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  there  never  were  any  round  tables  there  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Had  you  any  music  there  in  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  "Were  there  any  women  dancing  in  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pieruepont  : 

Q.  Were  there  any  women  dancing  there  that  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  any  time  during  the  day  1 

A..  Yes,  sir ;  when  we  had  rehearsals. 

Q.  When  did  you  have  your  rehearsals  1 

A.  From  11  to  12  o'clock, 

Q.  What  time  in  the  day  1 

A.  In  the  forenoon. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  dancing  there  in  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  else  did  you  do  there  besides  have  women  dance  at  rehearsals  ? 

A.  Business. 

Q.  What  kind  of  business  ? 

A.  Show  business. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  show  1 

A.  Performing. 

Q.  What  kind  of  performing  1 

A.  Somewhat  like  a  theatre. 

Q.  Have  you  any  liquor  there  to  sell  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  people  stop  around  the  tables  and  drink  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  a  torchlight  procession  in  Washington  after  we  had 
heard  of  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Richmond  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  were  any  parade  or  rejoicing  here  after 
we  heard  of  the  fall  of  Richmond  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  It  was  the  3d  of  April. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  were  any  after  that  in  April  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  any. 

Q.  Between  the  third  and  the  twentieth  of  April,  you  do  not  remember  any 
torchlight  procession  ? 

A.  There  was  not  any  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  do  not  fliink  there  was  any  on  the  14th  of  April — Friday,  do  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  there  was  one  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  There  Avas  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  No  torchlight  procession  on  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  April  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  sure  about  that  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  so. 

41 


634  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  As  sure  about  that  as  of  the  rest  you  Lave  stated  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  from  my  knowledge. 

Q.  Did  you  take  either  side  duriug  the  war  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  express  any  sympathy  for  the  one  side  or  the  other  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  neither  for  the  Union  nor  the  rebellion  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  kept  neutral. 

Q.  What  kinl  of  dancing  did  you  have  there  1 

A.  "Well,  different  kinds. 

Q.  The  object  of  having  your  show,  or  concert,  was  to  make  money,  was  it 
not? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  to  make  a  living. 

Q.  When  there  was  any  great  excitement  or  holiday  you  were  more  likely 
to  wish  to  have  your  exhibition,  were  you  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  generally  the  case;  we  did  not,  however,  look  much  after 
that. 

Q.  You  looked  after  getting  as  many  people  as  you  could  there,  didn't 
you  ? 

A.  They  always  came  in  by  themselves. 

Q.  I  suppose  more  came  in  by  themselves  Avhen  there  were  a  good  many  to 
come  in  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  generally  the  case. 

Q.  On  this  Friday,  the  14th  of  April,  there  was  no  torchlight  procession, 
nor  anything  to  excite  the  people  at  all  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;  because  the  place  had  not  been  opened  ;  that  is,  the  place  was  open 
but  there  was  no  show;  the  place  was  open  for  the  inside  people  going  in  and 
out. 

Q.  You  are  quite  sure  that  there  was  no  excitement  and  no  torchlight  pro- 
cession ? 

A.  I  think  so. 

Q.  Your  memory  is  as  distinct  in  regard  to  that  as  it  is  with  regard  to  any 
fact  you  have  testified  to  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  tbink  so. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  You  say  there  was  no  torchlight  procession  on  the  day  of  the  fourteenth  of 
April  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  there  was  not. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  any  torchlight  procession  on  the  night  of  the  fourteenth 
of  April,  1865 — The  night  the  President  was  assassinated. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  state  there  was  none  duriug  the  day,  but  that  there  was  one  during 
the  night  1 

A.  There  was. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you  had  no  performance  there  on  the  afternoon 
of  the  14th  of  April? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  had  a  performance  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 
"     Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  when  you  have  a  performance  in  the  after- 
noon it  is  advertised  ? 

A    Yes,  sir,  always  ;  especially  if  there  is  anything  going  on. 

Q.  In  what  paper  ? 

A,  Well,  we  always  advertised  in  the  Star. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  635 

Q.  Do  you  recolloct  any  matiuee  there  after  April,  in  1S65,  in  the  summer 
or  fall  of  that  year  '? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  several  of  them. 

Q.  Were  they  advertised  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  all  matinees  have  been  advertised. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  You  now  think  you  did  have  a  performance  there  on  Friday  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  but  not  in  the  afternoon. 

Q.  Wont  you  state  what  performance  you  had  on  Friday  night? 

A.  The  same  as  usual — dancing  and  singing. 

Q.  And  you  now  remember  that  there  was  a  torchlight  procession  that  even- 
ing? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q  .  JDid  you  think  I  was  asking  you  about  a  torchlight  procession  in  the  day 
time  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  think  I  meant  that  1 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  did  not  understand  you  at  the  minute. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  drinking  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  anybody  come  in  that  afternoon  and  drink  ? 

A.  Some  few  people. 

Q.  Do  you  know  who  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  J.  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  knew  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  him. 

Q.  Do  you  know  the  pri.soner  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  never  saw  him  before. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Atzerodt  ? 
:   A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  came  in  and  drank  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Somebody  did  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Mkrrick.  When  did  your  dancing  and  singing  begin  at  night? 

A.  At  a  quarter  to  8. 

George  Nackmann  sworn  and  examined  : 

By.  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 
A.  In  Washington. 
Q.  What  is  your  business  1 
A.  I  am  now  in  the  dry  goods  business. 
Q.  What  were  you  engaged  in  I8G5  ? 
A.  I  was  a  musician. 

Q.  Had  you  charge  of  a  band  of  musicians  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  was  the  leader  of  the  orchestra  at  Metropolitan  Ilall. 
Q.  Where  is  Metropolit-m  Hall  1 
A    On  D.  street,  fronting  the  avenue. 
Q.  Between  what  streets  ? 
A.  Between  llth  and  12th. 

Q.  Were  you  engaged  at  JEetropolitan  Hall  as  the  leader  of  that  orchestra 
in  April,  1865  ? 


636  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mr.  Bernard  Henze  going  to  the  north  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  he  went  to  Philadelphia. 

Q.  In  whose  charge  did  he  leave  the  hall  at  that  time  1 

A.  In  the  charge  of  his  brother,  the  police  officer,  and  myself. 

Q.  What  was  the  name  of  the  police  officer  ? 

A.  Mr.  Voss. 

Q.  What  were  your  duties  as  leader  of  the  orchestra  in  connection  with  the 
performance  at  that  halU 

A.  I  was  business  manager  in  general  for  some  time  during  the  month  of  April, 
for  Mr.  Henze.  Mr.  Henze  was  very  often  absent  from  the  city,  and  at  such 
times  he  always  gave  me  charge  of  his  place. 

Q.  Were  you  or  not  present  when  the  performances  were  going  on  ? 

A.  All  the  time. 

Q.  What  kind  of  performances  did  you  have  there  1 

A.  We  have  the  same  performances  there  as  they  had  at  Canterbury. 

Q.  Dancing,  music,  &c  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q.  What  time  did  your  performances  begin  ? 

A.  The  music  commenced  to  play  at  7^  o'clock  ;  the  performance  commenced 
at  8  o'clock,  and  closed  at  11  or  quarter  to  12. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Friday,  the  14th  of  April,  the  day  preceding  the  night 
Avheu  the  President  was  assassinated  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  or  not  on  the  afternoon  of  April  14,  1865,  there  was 
any  music  or  performance  at  that  hall  before  7  J  d'clock  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  not. 

Q,  Are  you  positive  of  that  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  Could  there  have  been  a  performance  at  that  hall  on  the  afternoon  of  the 
14th  of  April,  1865,  without  your  knowing  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  there  was  any  performance  in  the  afternoon 
at  any  subsequent  time  in  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  ? 

A.  There  was  a  performance  there  for  my  benefit  in  September. 

Q.  A  matinee  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  the  first  matinee  ever  given  in  that  hall. 

~'Q,.  Was  that  advertised  in  the  papers  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  could  not  have  made  anything  out  of  it  unless  I  had  advertised 
it  well. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  that  that  was  the  first  matinee  ever  given  while  you  were 
connected  with  that  hall  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  since  the  1st  of  January,  1865. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepoxt: 

Q.  What  country  are  you  from  ? 

A.  Germany. 

Q.  What  part  of  it  ? 

A.  On  the  Rhine. 

Q.  I  noticed  you  put  your  hat  on,  why  was  that  ? 

A.  I  believe  in  the  Old  Testament.     I  swear  by  that. 

Q.  You  do  not  believe  in  the  New  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  in  Washington  on  the  1 4th  of  April  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  G37 

A,  T  was. 

Q.  Where  were  you  iu  the  morning  ? 

A.  At  the  hall. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  there  ? 

A.  General  business  always  calls  me  there. 

Mr.  PiERRRPoNT.  I  (lid  not  ask  you  what  called  you  there,  but  I  asked  you 
what  you  did  there  on  that  morning. 

A.  I  stopped  in  there. 

Q.  At  what  time. 

A.  That  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there? 

A.  That  I  could  not  tell. 

Q,  When  did  you  leave  ? 

A.  When  I  went  to  my  dinner. 

Q.  Where  did  you  get  your  dinner  1 

A.  That  I  cannot  tell  either,  because  I  take  my  meals  wherever  I  feel  like  it. 

Q.  What  performance  was  at  this  hall  in  the  evening? 

A.  Do  you  mean  afternoon  or  night  1 

Q.  I  ask  what  the  performance  was  in  the  evening? 

A.  There  Avas  no  performance  there  in  the  afternoon.  At  night  there  was  the 
usual  performance  of  music  and  dancing. 

Q.  When,  according  to  your  theory,  does  night  begin  ? 

A.  When  it  is  dark. 

Q.  Did  you  commence  the  music  at  that  hall  at  7.^  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the 
14th  of  April  ? 

A.  We  did.     We  always  commenced  at  that  time. 

Q.  Did  any  women  dance  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Certainly,  ladies  danced  there. 

Q.  Was  there  any  drinking  there  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  there  is  a  public  bar  in  the  room. 

Q.  Were  there  any  tables  where  the  people  drank  at  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  sit  down  and  drink  ? 

A.  They  generally  sat  round  the  tables. 

Q.  Did  any  bodycome  in  there  that  night  ? 

A.  I  suppose  so,  as  the  hall  was  crowded. 

Q.  Did  anybody  come  in  there  that  afternoon  and  drink  ? 

A.  That  I  cannot  tell.     They  might  and  they  might  not. 

Q.  Were  you  there  all  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  That  i;^  what  I  cannot  tell  you. 

Q.  You  got  your  dinner  somewhere? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  might  have  gone  back  after  dinner,  and  I  might  not. 

Q.  Can  you  tell  where  you  were  between  1  and  7  o'clock  ? 

A.  Indeed  I  cannot. 

Q.  Then  you  don't  know  how  many  people  came  there  in  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  14th  was  not  at  all  a  holiday,  was  it? 

A.  It  was  Good  Friday. 

Q.  Was  it  observed  as  a  holiday  for  any  other  reason  ? 

A.  Not  as  I  know  of. 

Q.  Was  there  any  procession  that  evening? 

A    That  I  cannot  recollect. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  of  any  that  evening  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge  was  there  any. 


638  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  No  torchlight  procession  ? 

A.  I  cannot  recollect  any. 

Q.  When  there  was  a  holiday  or  time  of  any  great  rejoicing  among  the  peo- 
ple, you  had  more  people  to  come  in  and  drink  than  usual,  didn't  you  1 

A,  Certainly,  sir. 

Q.  Your  performance  was  better  attended  then,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  The  business  has  been  always  alike  at  Metropolitan  Hall ; 
always  been  first  rate. 

Q.  Always  precisely  alike  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  it  was  just  as  good  in  April,  1865,  when  there  were  a  few  people  in 
town,  as  when  there  were  many  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  a  few  people,  but  I  know  the 
place  was  always  crowded. 

Q.  When  people  came  in  to  drink  in  the  afternoon,  was  it  then  always  full] 

A.  I  don't  recollect  of  the  place  ever  being  full,  or  even  half  or  quarter  full 
in  the  afternoon, 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  anybody  drinking  there  in  the  afternoon  1 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Any  great  number  ? 

A.  Five,  ten,  or  fifteen  I  have  seen  go  up  to  the  bar  and  drink.  It  is  very 
seldom  that  I  have  ever  seen  any  gentlemen  sitting  at  the  table  drinking  in  the 
afternoon. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  You  say  there  were  tables  in  the  room  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  tables  1 

A.  Square  tables. 

Q.  Any  round  tables  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   we  have  never  had  any  round  tables  there. 

Q.  You  say  you  do  not  recollect  about  a  torchlight  procession  that  night  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  you  engaged  in  that  night  ? 

A.  Playing  the  violin. 

Q.  From  7^  o'clock  to  1 1  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  which  end  of  the  hall  is  the  orchestra  1 

A.  Right  in  front  of  the  stage. 

"Q.  At  which  end  is  the  stage  ? 

A.  Right  in  front  of  the  orchestra  (Laughter.) 

Q.  Is  it  at  the  front  or  the  back  of  the  hall  ? 

A.  At  the  back  furthest  from  the  street. 

Q,  And  your  orchestra,  I  suppose,  like  all  orchestras,  made  some  noise  on  its 
own  account  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  night  when  the  performance  is  going  on,  Metropolitan  Hall  is  almost 
always  crowded  ? 

A.  Always. 

Q.  But  in  the  afternoon  before  the  performance  begins,  you  never  saw  as  many 
as  fifteen  or  twenty  people  sitting  around  the  tables  1 

A.  I  never  saw  ten  sitting  around  the  tables. 

AuGi;STUS  Voss  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q,  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  On  10th  street,  No.  302. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT.  639 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  a  policeman. 

Q.  Wliat  was  your  business  in  April,  1865  1 

A.  1  was  a  policeman. 

Q.  What  part  of  the  city  had  yon  charge  of  in  your  official  capacity  ? 

A.  The  lower  portion  of  the  second  ward. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  '{ 

A.  Some  thirty  years. 

Q,  Do  you  know  where  Metropolitan  Hall  is  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Was  that  within  the  portion  of  the  city  given  in  charge  to  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  is  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.  On  the  south  side  of  D  street  between  11th  and  12th  streets. 

Q.  Does  it  look  out  towards  the  avenue  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  recollect  Mr.  Bernard  Henze  going  north  in  the 
month  of  April,  1865. 

A.   I  recollect  he  was  absent  the  day  the  President  Avas  killed. 

Q.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.  I  was  employed  there  to  keep  order. 

Q.  By  Mr.  Henze  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  there  the  day  or  the  night  of  which  the  President  was  assas- 
sinated 1 

A.  I  was  in  that  neighborhood  all  the  afternoon. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  on  the  afternoon  of  April  14,  the  day  the  President 
was  assassinated,  there  was  any  music  and  dancing  at  Metropolitan  Hall  before 
7j  o'clock. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Between  12  and  5  o'clock  of  the  afternoon  of  the  14th  of  April,  did  you 
go  into  Metropolitan  Hall? 

A.  I  did  not  go  in  as  I  know  of,  I  might  have,  but  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  You  remember  the  torchlight  procession  on  the  evening  of  that  day,  I 
suppose  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  I  was  in  Grover's  theatre  at  that  time. 

Q.  Were  you  at  Metropolitan  Hall,  at  all,  during  the  evening  of  the  14th  of 
April,  1865  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  sent  somebody  else  in  my  place. 

Q.  Between  12  o'clock  at  noon  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  and  12  o'clock  at 
night,  of  the  same  day,  were  you  once  in  Metropolitan  Hall  1 

A.  I  could  not  say  I  was. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  positive  there  was  none  ? 

A.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  of  it. 

Q.  AVhat  sort  of  tables  have  they  in  the  Metropolitan  Hall  ? 

A.   Square  tables. 

Q.  Any  round  tables  there  ? 

A.  None. 

Q.  What  time  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April,  1 865,  did  tlie  performance  at 
Metropolitan  Hall  begin  1 

A.  1  was  not  there  that  night  ? 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepo\t  : 

Q.  At  12  o'ebck,  on  the  14th  of  April,  1865,  where  were  you  ? 
A.  I  was  at  dinner  at  that  time. 


640  TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  from  dinner? 

A.  Down  to  that  portion  of  the  city. 

Q.  On  patrol  duty? 

Mr,  Merrick.  I  understand  you  to  say  you  were  in  the  neighborhood,  and 
if  there  had  been  music  and  dancing  there  that  afternoon  you  would  have  known 
it? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  was  in  that  square  pretty  much  all  the  afternoon. 

Thomas  Geary,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  On  D  street,  between  First  and  Second. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Washington  ? 

A.  About  18  years. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation? 

A.  I  keep  a  livery  stable. 

Q.  Do  you  know  W.  E,  Cleaver,  a  w'itness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  among  the  people 
with  whom  he  associates  and  in  the  community  where  he  lives  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  I  do. 

Q.  What  is  his  reputation  as  a  truthful  man  ? 

A.  It  is  generally  bad. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation  among  the  people  with  whom  he  associates, 
would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  would  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Who  have  you  heard  say  they  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  manv. 

Q.  Well,  who? 

A.  I  could  not  name  any  particular  one  ? 

Q.  Have  j'ou  heard  anybody  say  it,  until  since  he  was  on  trial  for  fornica- 
tion ? 

A.  I  heard  a  great  many  people  speak  bad  of  him  before  the  trial. 

Q.  Before  that  trial  did  you  ever  hear  anybody  say  they  would  not  believe 
him  under  oath  ? 

A.  I  never  heard  it  tested. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  anybody  say  before  tliat  trial  that  they  would  not  be- 
lieve him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  people  say  he  was  a  liar. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  anybody  say  they  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath 
before  his  trial  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  his  oath  tested. 

Q.  Who  did  you  ever  hear  say  it,  before  Cleaver  was  put  on  his  trial,  that  he 
was  a  liar  ? 

A.  I  cannot  particularly  say.     It  was  an  ordinary  occurrence. 

Q.  Can't  you  name  one  whom  you  heard  say  he  was  a  liar  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  The  point  they  were  talking  about  was  not  so  much  about  his  being  a  liar 
as  being  something  else,  was  it  ? 

A.  It  was  pretty  much  on  the  subject  of  his  being  a  liar. 

Q.  Who  was  it  that  it  was  pretty  much  so  with  ? 

A.  The  community  at  large  who  knew  him. 

Q.  Who? 


TRIAL    OP    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  641 

A.  I  cannot  call  any  one's  name. 

Q.  Have  you  Lad  any  difficulty  with  Cleaver  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Any  rivalry  witli  him  in  stable  keeping  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  He  is  a  horse  doctor,  isn't  he  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  Where  was  it  you  heard  these  convei-sations  ? 

A.  Ordinarily  over  the  city. 

Q.  Can  you  state  any  particular  place  where  you  ever  heard  any  such  con- 
versation ? 

A.  No,  sir,  T  cannot.  Yes,  I  may  say  I  have  heard  it  over  here  on  the  national 
race  course. 

Q.  Is  that  the  only  place  you  can  recollect  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  name  of  the  person  whom  you  heard  speak  of  him 
there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  in  a  crowd. 

Q.  You  don't  recollect  a  single  person  who  was  in  that  crowd  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  substance  of  what  was  said  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  It  was  about  throwing  a  race  ofiF,  or  his  friends— deceiving  his  friends. 

Q.  State  as  near  as  you  can  what  was  said. 

A.  I  cannot  state  what  was  said,  further  than  there  was  a  general  conversation 
to  that  effect. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q,.  With  which  side  did  you  sympathize  in  the  late  Avar  ? 

A.  I  did  not  sympathize  with  either  side  particularly. 

Q.  You  did  not  sympathize  with  the  Union  side  generally  1 

A.  Oh,  yes,  sir;  I  made  my  living  here  and  expected  to  stay  here.  All  I  had 
was  here. 

Q.  AVhich  side  did  you  sympathize  with  particularly  ? 

A.  The  Union  side. 

Q.  You  have  always,  have  you  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Wliat  then  did  you  mean  when  you  said  that  you  didn't  sympathize  with 
either  side  particularly  1 

A.  Well,  I  did  not  think  I  was  very  deeply  interested  in  either  side. 

Q.  Didn't  you  think  you  were  deeply  interested  in  preserving  the  govern- 
ment 1 

A.  I  said  all  I  had  was  here,  and  I  expected  to  stay  here  with  it. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  although  you  cannot  name  the  persons,  it 
was  the  general  talk  that  he  was  a  liar. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  so  common  that  you  cannot  name  any  one  individual  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  counsel  asked  you  whether  or  not  you  had  heard  anything  said  before 
Cleaver's  trial  for  fornication  ;   when  was  the  trial  ? 

A.  Some  two  months  ago,  I  believe,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  the  trial  for  1 

The  District  Attorney  :  Stop.  Were  you  in  the  court-room  at  the  time 
he  was  tried  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  read  it  in  the  papers. 


642  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : . 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  what  he  was  tried  for  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  believe  you  say  you  were  not  in  court  at  all  during  that  trial.  Did  you 
ever  here  Cleaver  say  what  he  was  tried  for  1 

(Objected  to  by  the  District  Attorney.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Have  you,  within  the  last  five  or  six  mouths,  missed  Cleaver  from  the 
community? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  he  appear  again  upon  the  theatre  of  action  ? 

A.  Some  two  weeks  ago,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  objecting  to  this  course  of  examination,  the  Court  sustained 
the  objection  on  the  ground  that  if  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  time 
of  the  trial  of  Cleaver,  it  was  not  proper.  The  witness  must  speak  from  his  own 
knowledge  of  the  time  of  the  trial ;  or  else,  the  record  of  such  trial  must  be 
produced. 

William  H.  Horner,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  1  live  on  Fourteenth  street  between  G  and  H. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ? 

A.  Forty-seven  years  is  what  mf  father  and  mother  told  me,  (laughter.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? 

A.  Ever  since  I  came  to  Washington. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  in  the  community  as  a  man  of  truth 
and  veracity  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  it  is  pretty  bad. 

Q.  From  what  you  have  heard  people  say  of  William  E.  Cleaver's  character, 
as  a  man  of  truth  or  falsehood,  would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath  1 

A.     I  would  not. 

Cross-examination. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  What  is  your  business  now  ? 

A.  I  make  medicine. 

Q.  What  sort  of  medicine  ? 

A.  Horner's  mixture. 

Q.  For  what  kind  of  diseases  ? 

A.  For  any  kind  you  may  name — any  inward  disease. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  engaged  in  the  business  1 

A.  For  thirty  years  I  have  been  making  it  for  different  people  and  giving  it 
away.  Within  the  last  two  years  I  have  gone  into  the  making  of  it  as  a 
business. 

Q.  Did  you  devote  yourself  during  these  thirty  years  exclusively  to  that  j 

business  1  * 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  your  other  businsss  ? 

A.  I  used  to  own  carriages  and  used  to  work  as  hackman.  When  tlie  war 
broke  out  I  sold  the  carriages  and  quit  the  business  of  hackman. 

Q.  Did  you  keep  a  livery  stable  '( 

A.  I  was  with  Mr.  Geary  for  a  while,  superintending  his  stable.    . 


I 


i 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  G43 

Q.  The  same  Mr.  Geary  who  was  a  witness  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  quit  Mr.  Geary  ? 

A.  I  cannot  exactly  say  ;  about  a  year  or  so  ago. 

Q.  Was  Cleaver  in  the  habit  of  attending  to  Geary's  horses  and  your  horses  ? 

A.  I  always  attended  to  my  own  horses. 

Q.  Did  he  ever  doctor  your  own  horses  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  employ  him  for  that  purpose  1 

A.  Xo,  sir;  I  always  doctored  my  own  horses. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  furni.<hing  your  mixture  for  horses  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  doctor  horses  yourself  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  and  Cleaver  engaged  in  that  business  at  the  same  time — of  doc- 
toring horses  ? 

A.  Only  for  a  few  friends  who  used  to  call  on  me. 

Q.  Did  you  charge  for  it  ? 

A.  Sometimes,  and  sometimes  not.  That  depended  upon  what  circumstances 
the  man  was  in. 

Q.  Was  Cleaver  engaged  in  that  same  business  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  believe  he  was. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Cleaver  personally  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  been  in  company  with  him. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  associating  with  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  speak  to  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  when  I  met  him. 

Q.  On  friendly  terms  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  we  never  had  a  word  in  our  lives. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  first  time  you  ever  heard  his  reputation  for  truth 
questioned  ? 

A.  I  do  not.  1  have  heard  it  at  different  places.  Once  at  Mr.  Flemming's 
stable,  Avhen  a  man's  horse  was  sick  there. 

Q.  I  want  you  to  fix  the  time. 

A.  I  cannot  fix  the  time. 

Q.  Give  us  some  idea  ? 

A.  I  cannot  give  you  any  idea. 

Q.  Go  on  and  state  what  it  was. 

A.  I  heard  some  gentlemen  there  say,  when  speaking  of  this  sick  horse, 
"Send  for  Cleaver;"  when  another  one  said,  "There  is  no  use  sending  for 
Cleaver;  I  wouldn't  believe  him  for  nothing."  These  are  the  words,  as  near  as 
I  remember.     I  think  they  were  gentlemen  from  Maryland. 

Q,.  Then  they  did  not  send  for  Cleaver? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  not.     1  left. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  these  gentlemen  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  on  this  occasion  ? 

A.  I  do  not  suppose  I  staid  there  more  than  twenty  minutes,  as  near  as  I  can 
come  at  it. 

Q.  You  thought  that  this  remark  that  was  made  about  Cleaver  was  an  impu- 
tation upon  his  veracity  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  such  remarks  frequently. 

Q.  You  say  you  don't  recollect  eitber  the  time,  the  place,  or  the  persons,  ex- 
cept on  this  one  occasion,  and  you  think  from  that  conversation  that  his  reputation 
is  bad  ] 


644  TEIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUREATT. 

A.  I  have  heard  it  hefore.     He  is  a  man  who  has  been  all  over  the  city,  as 
have.    A  man  who  follows  my  business  is  first  in  one  place  and  then  another.     I 
didn't  pay  much  attention  to  it  any  how. 

Q.  Notwithstanding  you  are  in  the  habit  of  going  to  all  sorts  of  places  in  the 
city,  you  do  not  recollect  the  name  of  a  single  person  that  you  heard  speak  of 
Cleaver,  except  the  one  you  have  mentioned  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  will  ask  if  you  had  any  conversation  with  Geary  this  morning  about 
Cleaver  ? 

A.  Yesterday  morning,  having  received  two  letters  for  some  of  my  medicine, 
one  from  Chicago,  he  being  a  partner  of  mine,  I  went  round  to  see  him.  We 
got  to  talking,  when  he  said  that  he  had  been  summoned  to  court.  I  think  I 
asked  him  what  about,  and  he  told  me  in  regard  to  Cleaver.  "Oh,"  says  I,  "I 
wouldn't  believe  him  on  his  oath."  He  said,  "  I  am  going  to  have  you  sum- 
moned." I  told  him  not  to  do  it ;  that  I  wanted  to  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  thing. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  any  one  else  t 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  as  1  know  of. 

James  W.  Pumphrev,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  State  how  long  you  have  lived  in  this  city. 

A.  All  my  life. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  who  was  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  1 

A.  From  twelve  to  fifteen  years,  I  guess. 

Q.  Where  did  he  come  from  ? 

A.  He  is,  I  believe,  an  Englishman  by  birth. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Cleaver's  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  through- 
out this  community  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  it  spoken  of  frequently. 

Q.  Before  this  trial  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  a  good  many  years  back.    I  think  his  reputation  is  very  bad. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation,  as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity,  would  you 
believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 

A.  I  would  not  like  to, 

"^Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Won't  you  state  who  you  have  heard  say  he  was  a  liar  1 

A.  I  cannot  tell  any  particular  one,  but  it  is  a  universal  thing.  I  never  heard 
a  man  speak  well  of  him  in  my  life.  I  have  heard  plenty  of  men  say  that  they 
would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 

Q.  Won't  you  name  one  ? 

A.  I  cannot  remember  any  particular  one. 

Q.  Try. 

A.  You  have  some  witnesses  here  whom  I  have  heard  say  so. 

Q.  Can  you  remember  of  anybody  except  these  witnesses  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  anybody  at  present. 

Q.  Have  you  talked  with  Cleaver  1 

Witness.  When? 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  At  any  time. 

Witness   Not  lately. 

Q.  Within  two  years  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  within  two  years  I  have. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT.  645 

Q.  What  have  yon  talked  witli  him  about  ? 

A.  About  horses,  and  one  thing  and  another. 

Q.  Did  you  place  any  reliance  upon  what  he  said,  in  view  of  this  bad  reputa- 
tion for  truth  and  veracity  1 

A.  He  is  a  man  in  whom  I  never  placed  much  confidence  at  all.  When  he 
and  I  were  talking  it  was  about  matters  that  didn't  amount  to  anything. 

Q.  Did  you  believe  he  was  telling  the  truth  ? 

A.  If  he  was  to  tell  me  anything  of  any  account  T  would  not  believe  it. 

Q.  If  he  had  told  you  that  he  had  seen  any  friend  of  yours  up  at  Willard's 
hotel,  you  would  not  iiave  believed  it? 

A.  i  would  doubt  it  very  much. 

Q.  You  would  not,  on  his  statement,  go  up  there  for  the  purpose  of  meeting 
the  person  if  you  were  anxious  to  see  him  ? 

A.  1  would  not  go  across  the  street  to  see  any  person  whom  he  might  state 
to  be  there. 

Q.  You  would  pay  no  attention  to  anything  he  might  say  ? 

A.  None,  whatever. 

Q.  From  his  reputation,  that  is  the  reason  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q  Can  you  state  some  persons  whom  you  have  heard  speak  of  his  reputation 
for  truth  ? 

A.  I  cannot  name  any. 

Q.  Can  you  state  any  particular  time  or  place  where  you  have  heard  this 
matter  spoken  of  ? 

A.  I  cannot ;  I  have  heard  it  at  different  times  and  places  for  the  last  eight 
or  nine  years. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  substance  of  what  you  have  heard  said  ? 

A.  1  have  heard   persons  say  that  he  was  a  bad   man  to  have   dealings  with, 
that  they  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 
By  Mr.  Pierrkpont  : 

Q.  You  keep  a  livery  stable  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  he  did  ? 

A.  I  believe  he  did ;   I  do  not  know  that,  however. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say,  in  reply  to  the  counsel,  that  this  opinion  ex- 
pressed in  public  was  so  universal  that  you  cannot  fix  upon  any  one  particular 
individual  1 

A.  That  is  it  exactly. 

Q.  No  one  man  made  an  impression  upon  you  because  they  all  said  the  same 
thing  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  heard  everybody  state  the  same  thing. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepo.nt  . 

Q.  And  out  of  that  everybody  you  cannot  name  one  ? 
A.  I  cannot  think  of  one  just  now. 

John  C.  Cook,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  resided  here  1 

A.  Since  '43. 


646  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  wlio  was  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  in  this  community  as  a  man  of  truth 
and  veracity  1 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  State  whether  that  reputation  is  good  or  bad. 
A.  Very  bad. 

Q.  From  that  general  reputation  would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 
A.  I  would  not. 

Cross-examined  by  the  District  Attorney  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  living  in  the  city  ? 

A.  Twenty-four  years. 

Q.  AVliiit  has  been  your  business  ? 

A.  I  have  been  in  a  heap  of  businesses.  I  was  in  the  hotel  business,  since 
I  was  engaged  in  buying  and  selling  niggers,  as  you  are  aware  I  was  at  one  time  ; 
I  was  at  that  time  keeping  a  livery  stable  too. 

Q.  What  business  was  Cleaver  engaged  in  at  that  time  ? 

A.  He  was  considered  a  veterinary  surgeon. 

Q.  Did  you  have  him  in  your  employment  during  that  time  ? 

A.  He  was  about  my  stable  a  good  deal. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Rainey  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  partner  of  Cleaver  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  know  all  the  Raineys. 

Q.  Cleaver  was  his  partner  1 

A.  He  is  reputed  to  be  his  partner  sometime  since  the  war. 

Q.  Was  not  his  stable  immediately  opposite  to  yours  ? 

A.  Mr.  Rainey  was  no  partner  when  my  stable  was  opposite  his.  I  learned 
that  some  two  or  three  years  ago  Cleaver  and  Rainey  bought  the  stable  I  formerly 
owned  on  6th  street.  My  stable  is  now  on  8th  street.  I  sold  out  my  stable  on 
6th  street  and  moved  to  8th  street,  but  they  did  not  buy  me  out.  About  a  year 
or  a  couple  of  years  afterwards  they  were  together  at  that  stable,  and  I  under- 
stood that  they  were  partners.     Whether  they  were  or  not  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Where  is  Rainey's  stable  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  he  has  any. 

Q.  Has  Cleaver  any  stable  now  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

-Q.  Do  you  know  when  he  quit  that  business  1 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  employ  him  as  a  veterinary  surgeon  1 

A.  I  think  he  has  sometimes  given  medicine  to  horses. 

Q.  Didn't  you  employ  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  (after  a  pause)  yes,  1  think  once,  he  did  go  to  the  Navy  Yard  with 
me  to  look  at  a  horse. 

Q.  How  long  has  Cleaver  been  living  in  this  city  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  exactly,  it  seems  to  me  that  he  has  been  here  some  fifteen 
or  sixteen  years. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  him  personally  ? 

A.  Ever  since  he  came  to  the  city.  I  guess  I  was  about  the  first  one  who 
did  know  him.     Dorsey  and  myself  were  then  keeping  stable  together. 

Q.  When  was  the  first  time  you  ever  heard  any  imputation  upon  his  veracity? 

A.  It  has  been  so  long  ago  I  cannot  tell.  1  never  heard  any  good  of  him  in 
my  life. 

Q.  Can't  you  state  some  particular  time  when  you  have  heard  his  reputation 
for  truth  questioned  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  647 

A.  We  have  been  frequently  sitting  in  the  office,  when  there  wouhl  something 
transpire.  I  recollect  on  one  occasion  there  was  a  man  taken  up  for  riding  across 
the  pavement,  when  the  matter  coming  up,  some  one  of  the  party  said :  "  Send 
for  Cleaver,  lie  will  swear  him  out." 

Q.  AVho  said  that  ? 

A.  It  was  spoken  of  in  the  stable.     I  do  not  exactly  remember  who. 

Q.  In  whose  stable  ? 

A.  In  the  stables  on  Sth  street.  I  had  my  office  there,  and  Mr.  Dorsey  at- 
tended to  the  stables. 

Q.  How  many  persons  were  present? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  maybe  five  or  six. 

Q.  Do  you  know  any  of  them  1 

A.  No,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Can  you  give  us  the  name  of  one  of  that  company  ? 

A.  I  cannot.     I  might  have  made  the  remark  myself.     I  know  it  was  said. 

Q    Were  you  not  the  person  who  made  the  remark  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  was,  for  I  am  not  apt  to  make  remarks  of  that  kind  about 
any  body.     I  am  not  apt  to  say  anything  that  will  hurt  any  one's  feelings. 

Q.  You  cannot  give  us  the  name  of  any  one  person  who  was  present? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Owen  Shekells  was  present. 

Q.  Did  he  make  the  remark  to  which  you  have  referred  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  he  did. 

Q.  Who  else  besides  Mr.  Shekells  was  present  ? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Allen  Dorsey  was  also  present,  though  I  am  not  sure. 

Q.  Did  he  make  that  remark  ? 

A.  T  do  not  know  that  he  did. 

Q.  Who  else  were  present? 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  they  were  present  for  a  certainty.  That  has  been  ten 
years  ago. 

Q.  State  some  other  occasion  when  you  heard  his  veracity  questioned  ? 

A.  It  was  the  general  conversation  when  he  was  alluded  to.  I  have  fre- 
quently heard  Mr.  Shekells  say  he  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 

Q.  Who  else  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  Mr.  Henry  Middleton  say  so. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  1 

A.  I  have  heard  him  speak  of  his  reputation  for  truth  at  the  club  room. 

Q.  State  what  Mr.  Middleton  said  ? 

A.  He  said  he  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 

Q.  When  was  this? 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  has  been  more  than  a  couple  of  weeks  ago. 

John  RAI\^:v,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  On  the  Island,  between  7th  and  Sth  streets. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  this  city  ? 
A.  I  have  been  living  here  for  sixteen  years. 
Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver  1 
A.  Yes,  sir 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity  ? 
A.  Pretty  well. 

Q.  What  is  hie  general  character  ? 
A.  Very  bad. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation,  as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity,  or  as  a  liar, 
would  you  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 


648  TREAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SUERATT. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr,  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Were  you  a  partner  of  Cleaver? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Are  you  connected  by  blood  with  the  same  Rainey  ? 

A.  He  is  an  iiucle  of  mine. 

Q.  Who  have  you  heard  speak  of  Cleaver  ? 

A.  Several. 

Q.  I  ask  who  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  number  here  in  town.     Mr.  Middleton  for  one. 

Q.  "When  did  you  hear  him  say  it  ? 

A.  Before  he  was  arrested  and  had  his  trial. 

Q.  What  did  you  hear  him  say  1 

A.  That  he  was  not  a  man  to  be  believed. 

Q.  When  did  you  hear  him  say  it  1 

A.  Sometime  before  Clearer  was  arrested. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  Down  at  the  Sixth  street  stable. 

Q.  Anybody  else? 

A.  Mr.  John  O'Brien. 

Q.  Where  did  you  hear  him  say  it  ? 

A.  At  his  restaurant,  on  Four-and-a-half  street. 

Q    When? 

A.  Over  a  vear  ago  ;  and  last  night. 

Q.  W  ho  else  ? 

A.  I  cannot  think  of  any  others  at  present. 

Q.  In  consequence  of  this  reputation  you  would  not  believe  anything  he  said  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  he  was  under  oath  or  not. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  told  you  any  fact  you  would  not  pay   any  attention  to  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  told  you  there  was  a  horse  for  sale  at  a  particular  place,  you  would 
not  believe  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  not  until  I  went  thei'e  and  saw  it. 

Q.  You  would  not  go  there  to  look  would  you  ? 

A.  That  would  depend  on  circumstances ;  if  I  was  going  that  way  I  might 
stop. 

Q.  But  you  would  not  go  and  look  in  consequence  of  the  statement  he  made 
tQ  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Henry  Middleton,  sworn  and  re-examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  State  where  you  reside. 
A.  Louisiana  avenue. 

Q.  How  long  have  yoir  lived  in  Washington  ? 
A.  Eighteen  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  who  was  a  witness  in  this  case? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  you  know  his  general  character  in  this  community 
as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity. 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  What  is  his  general  character  as  a  -man  of  truth  ? 
A.  Very  bad. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN  H.    SURRATT.  649 

Q.  Would  you,  from  his  general  character  for  truth  and  veracity,  believe  him 
on  his  oath  ? 
A.  I  would  not. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepo\t  : 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Restaurant  keeper. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  Ninth  street. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  kept  this  restaurant  1 

A.  I  have  been  in  business  for  fifteen  years. 

Q.  Do  you  sell  liquor  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Won't  you  please  state  who  you  have  heard  say  that  they  would  not  be- 
lieve him  under  oath. 

A.  I  have  heard  Mr.  Samuel  Rainey  say  so  for  one,  and  Mr.  Michael  Cragon 
for  another. 

Q.  When  did  you  hear  Mr.  Rainey  say  this — that  he  would  not  believe  him 
on  his  oath  ? 

A.  Some  four  or  five  weeks  ago. 

Q.  Who  else  did  you  hear  say  it? 

A.  I  disremember  now. 

Q.  In  consequence  of  this  reputation,  you  would  not  believe  anything  he  said  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  would  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  personally  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  dealings  with  him  ? 

A.  Some  little. 

Q.  What  sort  of  dealings  1 

A.  No  further  than  only  keeping  my  horse  at  a  livery  stable. 

Q,  Did  you  ever  have  any  diificulty  about  that  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 
_  Q.  When  he  told  you  he  would  keep  your  horse,  in  view  of  this  reputation, 
did  you  believe  he  would  ? 
A.  I  supposed  he  would. 
Q.  What  made  you  think  he  would  1 
A.  Because  he  had  a  partner  with  him. 
Q.  That  is  the  reason  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  told  you  there  was  a  horse  for  sale  in  another  stable,  you  would  not 
go  there  to  see  it  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Nor  would  you  believe  him  in  any  ordinary  matter  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Would  not  pay  the  least  heed  to  what  he  might  say  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Which  side  did  you  take  in  the  late  rebellion  ? 
A.  I  stood  neutral. 

Q.  Did  you  sympathize  with  either  aide  ? 
A.  Well,  somewhat. 
Q.  How  did  the  "somewhat  "  go  ? 
A.  Being  rather  southern  raised  1  could  not  help  my  feelings. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 
Q.  The  counsel  has  asked  you  to  give  the  names  of  the  persons  who  said  this 
4S 


650  TRIAL   OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

about  Cleaver,  I  want  to  know  whether  it  was'nt  the  general  talk  among  all 
who  knew  him  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q,  But  you  cannot  give  any  more  than  you  have  given  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  Where  were  you  bom? 

A.  In  Maryland. 

Q.  What  part? 

A.  Prince  George's  county. 

Mr.  Merrick.     A  very  good  place  to  come  from. 

Witness.    We  raise  white  men  there. 

John  Holahan,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 
Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 
A.  In  Washington  city. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  ? 
A.  About  14  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  a  witness  in  this  case  ? 
A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  in  this  com- 
munity 1 
A.  I  do. 
Q.  What  is  it  ? 
A.  Pretty  bad. 

Q.  Would  you,  from  that  general  reputation,  believe  him  on  his  oath  ? 
A.  I  should  not  like  to  do  so. 
Cross-examination. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Did  you  come  from  the  same  country  Cleaver  did  1 

A.  I  do  not  know.  I  was  born  in  Ireland.  I  undeistaud  he  says  he  was 
born  in  England. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  1 

A.  Working  in  the  different  departments.  I  worked  in  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment ;  in  the  Patent  Office ;  at  the  Insane  asylum,  and  around  at  other  places. 

Q.  Where  are  you  working  now  ? 

A.  I  have  not  worked  any  for  the  last  five  or  six  months.  The  last  place  I 
worked  at  was  the  Government  Printing  Office. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  there  ? 

A.  I  was  discharged,  I  believe. 

Q.  Why  were  you  discharged  ? 

A.  The  Superintendent  told  me  that  the  work  was  pretty  scarce. 

Q.  That  was  the  reason? 

A.  That  was  the  only  reason  I  knew  of. 

Q.  And  for  the  last  six  months  you  have  not  been  doing  any  thing. 

A.  0,  yes,  I  have.  I  said  I  was  not  at  work  any  where.  I  do  a  little  grocery 
business,  and  a  very  little  of  it. 

Q.  What  is  that  ? 

A.  Selling  a  little  tea  and  sugar. 

Q.  Where  do  you  sell  it  ? 

A.  On  F  street. 

Q.  Do  you  sell  any  thing  else  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  651 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  sell  bread. 

Q.  Any  thing  else  ? 

A.  Well,  a  great  many  things  in  the  line  of  groceries. 

Q.  l)o  you  sell  liquor  ] 

A.  I  used  to  sell  a  little  of  it  sometime  ago. 

Q.  Do  you  sell  any  of  it  now  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  the  trouble — any  difficulty  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  only  I  have  not  a  license. 

Q.  Did  you  sell  some  without  a  license,  and  get  into  trouble  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  have  never  been  into  trouble  as  regards  any  liquor. 

Q.  Were  you  acquainted  with  Cleaver  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  a  little. 

Q.  Who  did  you  hear  talk  against  his  character  for  truth  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  a  great  many. 

Q,  •'  Who?"  is  my  question. 

A.  I  disremember  now,    I  could  not  bring  to  memory. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  place  where  it  was  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  I  have  heard  it  often  down  at  his  stable ;  and  I  have  heard  it  in  the 
neighborhood  where  I  have  been  living. 

Q.  Who  did  you  hear  say  it? 

A.  I  disremember. 

Q.  You  cannot  mention  one  whom  you  heard  say  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  would  not  believe  a  word  Cleaver  says  on  any  subject,  would  you  ? 

A.  I  would  not  like  to  do  so. 

Q.  Would  not  have  any  sort  of  faith  in  what  he  should  say  about  any 
ordinary  matter  ? 

A.  I  should  not  like  to  do  so. 

Q.  You  don't  believe  he  would  tell  the  truth  under  oath  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  because  once  he  told  me  that  he  didn't  care  for  an  oath. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  What  did  he  say  ? 

A.  He  said  he  had  no  scruples  with  regard  to  taking  an  oath  if  it  suited  his 
purposes — if  he  could  make  any  thing  by  it. 

Q.  When  did  he  tell  you  that  ? 

A.  In  the  latter  part  of  August,  1865. 

Q.  Where  was  that  ? 

A.  That  was  down  at  his  stable  on  Sixth  street. 

Q.  How  came  he  to  tell  you  that  ? 

A.  Some  few  of  us  were  in  conversation,  when  the  subject  of  the  conspiracy 
trials,  at  which  Cleaver  was  a  witness,  came  up.  He  then  made  this  remark. 
It  was  during  the  latter  part  of  the  trial. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  ? 

A.  I  disremember  their  names. 

Q.  Don't  you  remember  any  of  them  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  could  not  say,  positively. 

Q.  Was  that  at  his  stable  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  used  to  go  there  pretty  often,  didn't  you  ? 

A.  I  used  to  go  there  generally. 

Q.  Generally  for  what  ?  What  did  you  go  there  to  see  this  bad  man 
generally  for  ? 


652  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  had  no  particular  business  as  far  as  that  is  concerned.     I  went  there  no 

more  than  I  would  go  any  where. 

Q.  You  knew  then  he  was  a  pretty  bad  man  ? 

A.  I  had  no  dealings  with  the  man.     I  would  not  like  to  trust  him. 

Q.  You  knew  then  he  was  a  very  bad  man  ? 

A.  I  thought  by  his  own  acknowledgment  that  he  was. 

Q.  And  yet  you  would  go  there  to  see  him  ? 

A.  Not  to  keep  company  with  him.    I  went  there  to  see  friends  of  mine. 

Q.  Who? 

A.  William  Hussey. 

Q.  Did  you  use  to  see  him  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  very  often. 

Q.  Was  he  there  when  you  had  this  talk  with  Cleaver  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

By  Mr.  Merrick: 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  it  was  the  general  talk,  that  he  was  a  liar 
and  not  to  be  believed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  the  general  talk. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  he  said  about  his  own  oath,  on  the  occasion  to  which  you 
have  referred? 

A.  He  said  he  had  no  scruples  as  regards  taking  an  oath  if  it  would  suit  his 
own  purposes,  and  he  could  make  anything  by  it. 

Q.  That  was  after  he  had  been  SM'orn  as  a  witness  on  the  conspiracy  trials, 
and  while  you  were  all  engaged  in  a  general  conversation  with  regard  to  that 
trial ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  He  said  that  freely  before  them  all,  didn't  he  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  secrecy  about  it  ? 
A.  There  was  none. 
Q.  It  was  openly  avowed  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  give  us  the  manners  of  any  of  these  men  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  he  talking  about  then  ? 
A.  He  said  he  was  a  witness  down  there. 
Q.  Did  he  say  he  had  sworn  falsely  there  ? 
A.  I  cannot  remember  whether  he  did  or  not. 
Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  said  he  had  sworn  falsely  there  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  he  swear  to  there  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know.     I  never  read  his  testimony. 
Q.  How  happened  this  conversation  that  you  speak  of? 

A.  It  was  late  in  the  afternoon.     Some  of  the  men  there  were  reading  the 
papers  outside,  and  I  believe  that  is  the  way  it  came  up. 
Q.   Who  was  reading  the  paper  ? 
A.  I  disremember. 
Q.  Who  first  spoke. 

A.  I  cannot  say.     I  heard  Cleaver  make  the  remark. 
Q.  What  led  him  to  make  such  a  strange  remark  ? 
A.  That  I  do  not  know.     I  heard  him  expressing  himself. 
Q.  Was  he  sayiug  it  to  you  ? 
A.  To  the  party.     I  believe  he  remarked  it  to  me. 


"O 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H  SURRATT.  653 

Q.  He  repeated  it  over  to  you  ? 

A.  Indeed  I  could  not  say  exactly,  but  I  beard  bitn  express  it. 

Q.  "Was  be  addressing  you  1 

A.  He  was  addressing  all  wbo  were  tbere.  I  could  not  say  to  Avbom  be  was 
addressing  tbe  remark  particularly. 

Q.  Did  you  bear  biin  mike  tbe  remark  twice  ? 

A.  I  beard  bim  make  tbe  remark.  I  could  not  say  wbetber  I  beard  bim 
make  it  twice  or  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  go  tbere  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Did  you  ever  speak  to  bim  tbere  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Frequently  ? 

A.  I  continued  to  go  tbere  sometimes. 

Q.  Did  you  tbink  that  bis  saying  tbat  was  all  rigbt  1 

A.  I  bad  no  dealings  witb  bim. 

Q.  But  you  continued  to  visit  tbere  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  for  a  certain  business.  Tbere  was  a  man  there  wbo  owed  me 
some  money,  and  I  went  to  get  it  on  several  occasions. 

Q.  "Wbo  owed  you  money  ? 

A.  3[r.  Samuel  Hussey. 

Q.  Did  you  get  your  money  ? 

A.  I  got  part  of  it. 

Q.  "Where  is  William  Hussey? 

A.  He  is  here  in  town. 

Q.  He  never  paid  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  be  has  pretty  much  paid  me. 

Q.  Did  he  pay  you  at  Cleaver's  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

James  Foy,  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  1 

A.  In  Washington. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  here  ?  ■ 

A.  Thirty-six  or  seven  years. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  who  was  a  witness  in  this  case. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  in  this  com- 
munity ? 

A.  It  id  pretty  bad. 

Q.  You  know  what  people  say  of  him  generally  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  From  bis  general  reputation,  as  a  man  of  truth  or  as  a  liar,  would  you  be- 
lieve him  on  oath  ? 

A.  It  would  depend  on  circumstances.  If  be  had  anything  to  make  by  it 
I  would  not  believe  him.  In  an  ordinary  transaction  I  would  have  to  believe 
bim. 

Q.  Have  you  had  any  conversation  with  William  E.  Cleaver,  a  witness  ex- 
amined in  this  cause,  in  reference  to  bis  having  received  any  offer  or  promise  of 
benefit,  advantage,  or  reward  for  tbe  testimony  he  should  give  iu  this  case ; 
if  yea,  state  what  tbat  conversation  was  ? 

Tbe  District  Attorney,  I  object,  on  the  ground  that  tbe  foundation  has 
not  been  laid. 

Mr.  Bradley  read  from  Cleaver's  testimony,  page  93  of  the  official  record,  as 
follows : 


654  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

"  Q.  Have  you  received  any  offer,  favor,  or  reward  for  the  testimony  you 
have  given  in  this  case? 

"  A.  1  have  not  from  anybody. 

*'  Q.  You  are  quite  sure  of  that  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir.     I  have  not  from  anybody." 

Mr.  Bradley  then  stated  :  I  projiose  to  show,  by  the  witness  on  the  stand, 
what  Cleaver  had  said  to  him,  regarding  the  promise  of  favor  or  reward  that  he 
Avas  to  have  to  testify  in  this  case. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  counsel  really  thinks  that  is 
legitimate  under  the  ruling  of  your  honor. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  do  not  know  nor  care  what  the  gentleman  believes,  I  pro- 
pose it  as  a  question  of  law  to  be  decided  by  the  court. 

Mr.  PiERREPOKT.  Then  I  object. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  object  with  courtesy,  if  you  please.  Do  not  say  you 
do  not  believe  I  am  sincere  when  I  make  a  proposition  to  the  court. 

The  Court.  The  witness  Cleaver  states  here  that  he  never  did  receive  any 
offer  of  favor  or  reward.  If  you  wish  to  contradict  that  statement,  you  must 
proceed  to  do  so  in  the  usual  manner.  I  see  no  reason  why  a  departure  should 
be  had,  in  this  particular  instance,  from  the  general  rule  laid  down  on  the  sub- 
ject of  contradicting  witnesses. 

The  question  being  overruled,  Mr.  Bradley  reserved  an  exception. 

Mr.  Merrick  then  offered  in  evidence  the  record  of  conviction  in  the  case  of 
the  United  States  vs.  William  E.  Cleaver.  Case  No.  4,851,  tried  at  the  March 
term  for  the  year  1867  of  the  criminal  court  of  the  District.  The  record  was 
handed  to  the  court. 

Assistant  District  Attorney  Wilson  objected  to  its  reception  on  two  grounds  : 
First,  because  it  was  not  a  record  of  conviction,  as  the  court  would,  of  coiu-se, 
take  judicial  notice  of  the  subsequent  proceedings  awarding  a  new  trial,  as  ap- 
peared from  the  journal  which  he  had  placed  before  him ;  secondly,  because, 
even  if  it  were  a  record  of  conviction,  it  would  not  be  admissible  for  the 
purpose  of  impairing  the  credibility  of  the  witness.  If  it  had  any  effect  what- 
ever, it  would  be  as  to  his  competency  as  a  witness,  and  not  as  to  his  credi- 
bility, as  that  could  not  be  affected  or  impeached  in  the  way  proposed.  Mr. 
Wilson  read  from  Bennett  and  Kurd's  leading  criminal  cases  to  sustain  the 
point  raised. 

Mr.  Merrick  stated  that  the  prosecution  was  mistaken.  It  was  a  record  of 
a  conviction  and  a  sentence.  Cleaver  was  sentenced  to  five  years  in  the  Albany 
penitentiary.  He  held  that  the  record  was  admissible,  as  affecting  both  his 
credibility  and  competency  as  a  witness.  Mr.  Merrick  read  from  5th  Hill, 
case  of  Carpenter  and  Nixon,  as  sustaining  his  view  of  the  question.  He  sub- 
mitted that  if  it  was  a  record  of  an  infamous  crime  it  was  allowable  to  go  to  the 
jury  as  affecting  the  credit  of  the  witness.  He  offered  the  record  as  the  record  of 
an  infamous  crime,  and  as  such  competent  to  go  in  evidence.  He  maintained 
that  although  Cleaver  had  been  granted  a  new  trial,  yet  the  record  could  go  to 
show  his  credibility. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  that  the  record  did  not  affect  the  moral  character  of 
the  witness  Cleaver  except  as  to  one  particular  point,  and  thought  in  no  case  a 
record  could  be  used  to  affect  the  credibility  of  the  witness,  after  the  counsel 
had  neglected  to  produce  it,  to  j)revent  the  witness  from  testifying. 

The  Court  said  that  he  would  state,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  court  would 
always  take  cognizance  of  its  own  records — not  take  notice  of  a  part  and  ignore 
the  residue.  He  could  not  overlook  the  fact  that  he  helped  to  reverse  his  own 
ruling  given  in  the  trial  below.  Justice  Wylie  and  himself  were  on  one  side, 
and  Justice  Olin  on  the  other,  in  reference  to  one  point  at  least,  and  that  was 
a  very  material  point  in  the  case.  Since  the  granting  of  the  new  trial,  the  wit- 
ness Cleaver — defendant  in  the  record  before  him — had  been  bailed  out,  and 


TEIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  655 

was  now  waiting  to  be  tried  whenever  the  court  shall  be  ready  to  take  up  the 
case.  He  stood  now  just  as  though  he  had  never  been  tried  at  all,  because  non 
c(mstat,'h\\i  that  on  another  trial  he  might  prove  his  entire  innocence.  He  could 
not  see,  therefore,  that  there  was  any  record  to  offer,  either  as  to  his  credibility 
or  as  to  his  competency.  Besides,  the  conviction  was  a  conviction  for  man- 
slaughter, which  was  not  a  crime  which  affected  the  credibility  of  a  witness. 
Inasmuch  as  the  law  presumes  every  man  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  convicted, 
and  finally  convicted,  and  there  being  no  conviction  in  that  case,  but  the  man 
being  now  at  large  on  bail  awaiting  a  new  trial,  therefore  there  was  no  record 
for  him  to  allow  to  be  given  in  evidence  to  the  jury. 

Exception  reserved. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow  (Thursday)  morning,  at  10 
o'clock. 


Thursday,  July  11,  1867. 


The  court  was  opened  at  10  o'clock. 
Thomas  TV.  Williams,  sworn  and  examined. 


By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  State  where  you  reside. 

A.  On  H  street,  in  this  city. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Washington  ? 

A.  All  my  life ;  I  was  born  and  raised  here. 

Q.  Did  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  the  witness  in  this  case  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  in  the  community  for  truth  and  vera- 
city ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  that  reputation  1 

A.  It  is  generally  bad. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation,  as  a  man  of  truth  or  a  common  liar,  would 
you  believe  him  on  hit  oath  ? 

A.  I  should  not  think  I  would. 

Cross-examined  by  the  District  Attorxey  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  known  Cleaver  ? 

A.  About  ten  or  eleven  vears. 

Q.  You  are  engaged  in  the  livery  business  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been.     I  am  not,  at  present. 

Q.  Did  you  see  much  of  Cleaver  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  a  good  deal  of  him  within  the  last  three  or  four  years. 

Q.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  employing  him  as  a  veterinary  surgeon  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  that  he  was  a  partner  with  Mr.  Rainey  in  business  1 

A.  I  recollect  seeing  him  with  him  on  6th  street;  I  do  not  know  whether  he 
was  engaged  with  him  or  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  was  engaged  in  the  livery  stable  business,  in 
connection  with  his  business  as  veterinary  surgeon  ? 

A.  No ;  I  do  not  recollect.  While  passing  by  I  have  seen  him  ou  6th  street 
a  good  deal,  down  around  the  stable.     I  never  went  there  very  often. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  who  it  was  you  heard  speak  of  his  character  for  truth  ? 

A.  1  have  heard  a  good  many  say  they  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 

Q.  When  was  that  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  it  here  lately. 

Q.  Had  you  ever  heard  of  it  previous  to  this  trial,  or  to  the  trial  of  Cleaver  ? 


G5fi  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SURRATT. 

j!\  .  T  clo  not  knoAv  as  I  ever  did  hear  anybody  say  they  would  not  believe  him 
on  his  oath  before  the  trial. 

Q.  You  know  there  was  a  good  deal  of  prejudice  excited  against  him  on  ac- 
count of  that  ti'ial.     Now  I  will  ask  you  if,  at  any  time,  you  ever  heard  any  one 
speak  of  Cleaver's  reputation  for  truth  previous  to  this  trial  and  to  his  own  trial  1 
A.  O,  yes,  sir ;  I  have. 

Q.  Will  you  state  when  it  was  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  persons  speak  of  hira  at  the  time  he  was  put  in  as  govern- 
ment inspector  of  horses  on  the  other  side  of  the  river. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  acting  in  that  capacity  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  how  long  it  was.  I  recollect  he  put  a  few  horses  of 
mine  in  while  he  was  over  there. 

Q.  That  was  the  time  when  you  heard  his  character  for  truth  assailed  ] 

A.  When  he  was  there  acting  as  inspector,  persons  came  to  me  and  remarked 
that  Cleaver  was  over  there  inspecting  horses,  and  that  if  I  had  any  I  had  bet- 
ter take  them  over  ;  that  1  could  get  them  through  very  handy. 

Q.  Who  was  it  that  told  you  that  1 

A.  I  disremember  who  the  gentlemen  were  who  were  putting  horses  in  at 
that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  horses  over  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  get  your  horses  through  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  manage  to  get  them  through  ? 

A.  Well,  I  put  them  through. 

Q.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  paid  Cleaver  anything  for  it  ? 

A,  I  would  not  like  to  answer. 

Q.  Did  you  bribe  Cleaver  to  put  your  horses  through  ? 

A.  I  decline  to  answei*. 

Q.  Why  do  you  decline  to  answer. 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  This  is  a  thing,  it  strikes  me,  which  would  make  an  impression  upon  your 
mind.  Can  you  state  who  it  was  that  gave  you  this  information,  upon  which  it 
seems  you  acted  ? 

A.  Some  of  the  contractors  ;  I  now  disremember  who.  There  were  a  good  many 
at  that  time. 

Q.  Can  you  state  the  name  of  one  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;   I  do  not  think  I  can. 

Q.  Where  was  it  you  received  this  information  ? 

A.  At  my  stable ;   I  kept  stable  then. 

Q.  When  you  got  this  information  how  long  did  you  wait  before  you  acted  on 
it  ?     Did  you  hesitate,  or  act  upon  it  immediately  ? 

A.  I  went  riglit  over  and  took  my  horses  there  1 

Q.  How  long  has  it  been  since  you  put  in  horses  over  there  ? 

A.  Nearly  four  years. 

Q.  Was  that  the  first  time  you  ever  heard  his  reputation  assailed  1 

A.  0,  I  have  heard  a  great  many  persons  speaking  loose  of  hira. 

Q.  In  what  respect  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  pcojjle  say  he  was  not  an  honest  man,  that  he  was  a  liar,  and 
that  he  couldn't  be  believed  in  anything  he  said. 

Q.  I  want  to  know  when  it  was,  and  where  it  was,*  and  who  you  heard  say 
that? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  you  when  and  where  it  was ;  it  has  been  so  numerous  I 
could  not  tell  you.  So  many  persons  have  said  so,  that  I  cannot  tell  who  they 
are.     I  have  heard  some  persons  around  on  H  street  speak  of  him  in  that  way. 

Q.  When  ? 


TKIAL  OF  JOHN  11.  SURRATT.  657 

A.  Before  the  trial ;  some  two  or  three  years  ago. 
Q.  State  the  names  of  these  persons  ? 

A.  Owen  Shekells  I  have  heard  say  he  would  not  believe  him  on  his  oath. 
Q.  Who  else  ? 

A.  I  have  heard  Mr.  John  C.  Cook  say  so  ? 
Q.  The  one  who  was  on  the  stand  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Give  us  some  other  names. 

A.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  recall  any  others,  but  I  have  heard  a  great  many 
round  in  the  neighborhood  say  so. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPONT  : 

Q.  You  thought  pretty  badly  of  him  when  you  found  he  would  take  your 
horses,  did  you  ? 

(Objected  to.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Did  these  matters,  about  receiving  and  passing  horses,  enter  into  the  forma- 
tion of  your  opinion  as  to  his  general  reputation  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick.     Objection  overruled.) 

A.  I  did  not  think  he  was  fit  for  the  place. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  am  not  asking  you  as  to  whether  you  thought  he  was  fit 
for  the  place  or  not,  but  am  asking  you  whether  the  fact  of  his  passing  horses 
entered  your  judgment  of  his  reputation  for  truth  ? 

A.  I  should  think  it  did. 

Q.  You  thought,  then,  that  it  was  damaging  to  his  character  for  truth  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  found  that  out,  did  you  immediately  quit  going  there  ? 

A.  I  stopped  going  there  when  I  got  my  horses  through. 

Q.  You  did  not  until  then  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  side  in  the  late  rebellion  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  or  express  sympathy  with  either  side  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  three  months'  service  on  this  side? 

Q.  Did  you  continue  your  sympathies  on  the  Union  side  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  I  will  state  that  I  was  under  the  government  employ. 

Q.  And  you  had  them  at  the  time  you  were  putting  the  horses  in  1 

A.  Certainly,  I  had. 

Q.  And  they  were  quite  keen  then,  were  they  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrfck  : 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Cleaver  was  employed  by  the  government 
to  inspect  horses  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  it  was  generally  said  horses  could  be  got  through,  with  his  inspection, 
very  easily  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  that  that  fact,  among  other  facts,  entered  into  your  estimate  of  his 
general  character  for  truth  if 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  iinderstand  that,  as  a  man  of  truth,  he  was  bound  to  pass  no 
horses  but  good  horses  ] 

A.  Yes,  tir. 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  by  the  district  attorney  to  state  the  name  of  some 
individual  whom  you  heard  speak  of  him  as  a  man  of  truth  or  falsehood.  You 
state  you  cannot  name  any  particular  party,  other  than  those  you  have  men- 


658  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

tioned.  Now,  tell  the  jury  whether  it  was  not  almost  universally  said  of  him, 
when  his  veracity  was  discussed,  that  he  was  not  a  man  of  truth. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Why  is  it  you  cannot  remember  the  names  of  persons  who  said  he  was  a 
man  who  lied  ? 

A.  Because  so  many  said  so  that  I  cannot. 

Jackson  Pumphrky  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Please  state  where  you  reside? 

A.  In  the  Seventh  ward. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  the  city  of  Washington  ? 

A.  About  fifty-three  years. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  I  am  a  carpenter  and  builder. 

Q.  Do  you  know  William  E.  Cleaver,  who  was  examined  as  a  witness  in 
this  case  ? 

A.  I  think  I  do. 

Q  Do  you  know  his  general  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  in  this  com- 
munity 1 

A.  It  has  never  been  considered  very  good,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  of  him 
goes.     I  have  known  him  for  twenty  yeai's  and  upwards. 

Q.  How  long  has  it  been  considered  bad? 

A.  I  never  heard  him  spoken  of  as  being  a  very  correct  and  good  man  in  my 
life. 

Q,  Have  you  heard  him  spoken  of  in  regard  to  his  being  a  man  who  would 
tell  the  truth,  or  who  would  tell  a  lie  ? 

A.  The  first  time  that  my  attention  was  called  to  that  was,  I  think,  some 
twelve  years  ago.     I  had  purchased  a  horse — 

Mr.  BraUley.  You  need  not  go  into  facts. 

Witness.  I  was  going  to  state  that  my  brother,  who  keeps  a  livery  stable, 
stated  to  me  that  there  was  no  confidence  to  be  placed  in  anything  Mr.  Cleaver 
told  me. 

Q.  From  his  general  reputation,  as  a  man  of  truth  and  veracity,  would  you 
believe  him  on  his  oath  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would. 

Q.  Supposing  there  was  a  responsibility  i-esting  upon  your  shoulders  for  the 
accuracy  of  the  conclusion  to  which  you  were  to  come,  would  you  take  his  oath 
as"justifying  the  conclusion  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.  Objection  sustained.  Exception  re- 
served.) 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  Washington  1 

A.  I  was  born  and  raised  here. 

Q.  This  talk  that  you  say  you  had  about  Cleaver  not  being  believed,  was 
with  your  brother  about  a  horse  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  My  brother  said  he  would  not  take  his  word  in  regard  to  any 
thing. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  hear  anything  generally,  said  on  the  subject  by  men  dealing 
in  horses  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;   I  think  so, 

Q.  You  have  heard  some  talk  on  that  general  subject  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  There  is  a  pretty  good  understanding  down  here,  and  all  over  the  world, 
so  far  as  you  know,  isn't  there,  on  the  subject  of  horse-trading  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  659 

A.  I  never  dealt  much  in  horse-trading  myself,  and  therefore  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  answer  that  question. 

Q.  Your  brother  kept  the  livery  stable  ? 

A.  He  did. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  about  the  way  people  talked,  in  buying  and  sell- 
ing horses  1 

A.  I  should  suppose,  if  I  were  allowed  to  say  so,  that  people  ought  to  deal  as 
honestl}'  in  transactions  of  that  kind  as  regards  any  other  transactions. 

Q.  You  have  bought  and  sold  horses  ;  have  you  not  1 

A.  Some  little.  I  have  always  found  men  to  be  very  honest  in  those  trans- 
actions. 

Q.  What  is  your  business  now  ? 

A.  I  carry  on  house  building. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  part  in  the  rebellion,  on  the  one  side  or  the  other  1 

A.  If  I  took  it  either  Avay,  I  took  it  in  defence  of  my  country. 

Q.  Did  you  take  either  side  ? 

A.  I  advised  my  children  to  go  into  the  war  to  put  down  the  rebellion.  I 
had  three  sons,  and  I  advised  them  all  to  go  in,  and  they  did  so. 

Q.  Did  you  take  any  other  part  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Has  the  question  of  your  ability  to  take  the  juror's  oath  ever  been  brough 
before  you  1 

A.  I  have  been  a  juror.     I  was  never  questioned  as  to  my  loyalty. 

Q.  Your  sympathies  went  with  the  Union  side  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  they  did,  strongly,  and  do  yet. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  had  anything  to  do  with  Cleaver  1  Have  you  ever  had 
any  business  with  him  ? 

A.  No  more  than  talking  with  him  casually  on  the  street. 

Q.  Have  you  often  talked  with  him  1 

A.  I  have,  I  suppose,  talked  with  him  a  dozen  times  in  my  life. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  trade  with  him  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  your  brother  alone  who  had  hoi-se  dealings  with  him  ? 

A.  My  brother,  as  I  stated,  kept  a  livery  stable.  What  his  dealings  with 
Cleaver  were  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  I  thought  you  told  us  he  had  dealings,  and  that  that  was  the  origin  of  this 
opinion  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  said  I  was  about  to  have  some  transactions  with  Mr.  Cleaver, 
and  my  brother  advised  me  not.  I  was  going  to  give  him  a  horse  which  I  had 
traded  for  to  attend  to.  I  thought  it  was  desirable  that  somebody  should  attend 
to  the  horse. 

Q.  In  what  way  1 

A.  As  horse  doctor. 

Q.  Your  brother  advised  against  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Tallmadge  J.  LaiMBERT,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Will  you  please  state  where  you  reside  ? 

A.  1  at  present  reside  on  H  street,  between  21st  and  22d,  No.  176. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

A.  I  am  a  clerk  in  the  office  of  the  Paymaster  General. 

Q.  How  long  have  you  been  in  that  office  ? 

A.  Since  October  11,  1863. 

Q.  Where  did  you  reside  in  1865? 


660  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  I  resided  on  II  street,  Xo.  587,  between  4th  and  5th. 

Q.  On  which  side  of  the  street  did  you  reside  1 

A.  On  the  south  side. 

Q.  How  far  were  you  from  house  No.  541  ? 

A.  At  most  one  square  and  three-quarters. 

Q.  Will  you  describe  to  the  jury  the  external  structure  of  the  house  you  were 
then  living  in  1 

A.  The  house,  as  I  said  before,  is  situated  on  the  south  side  of  H  street,  east 
of  the  centre  of  the  square,  between  Fourth  and  Fifth  streets.  It  is  a  brick 
house,  three  stories  and  a  basement,  with  high  winding  steps  of  granite. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  basement  is  it  ?  Is  it  a  basement  under  ground,  or  what 
is  known  as  an  English  basement  ? 

A.  It  is  an  English  basement  on  a  level  with  the  ground. 

Q.  How  high  are  the  steps  ? 

A.  There  are  eight  steps,  I  believe  ;  the  precise  height  in  feet  I  do  not  re- 
member. 

Q.  Now  go  on  with  your  description  of  the  house. 

A.  The  house  has  marble  facings,  window  sills,  and  tappings.  The  steps 
Lave  an  iron  railing  running  up  on  the  judiciary  side.  To  the  west  of  the  house 
is  an  open  lot.  Immediately  adjoining  the  lot,  on  the  west,  is  a  brick  house  be- 
longing formerly  to  Mr.  Donu,  formerly  a  justice  of  the  peace  here.  To  the 
east  of  the  house  there  is,  and  was  at  that  time,  a  brick  building  scarcely  per- 
ceptibly higher  than  my  own,  and  having  a  different  front  from  the  street,  the 
steps  letting  out  immediately  from  the  street. 

Q.  Who  was  living  Avith  you  in  that  house  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  There  was  my  mother,  and  the  servant  girl.  The  front  floor  was  occu- 
pied by  a  gentleman  and  a  lady. 

Q.  Your  mother  was  keeping  house  ? 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Which  way  from  541  is  587  ? 
A.  To  the  east. 

Q.  After  you  leave  541,  what  is  the  first  street  you  come  to  ? 
A.  Sixth  street. 

Q.  Where  is  587  in  relation  to  Sixth  street  ? 
A.  587,  as  I  said  before,  is  between  Fourth  and  Fifth  streets. 
Q.  Then  after  you  leave  541,  you  first  come  to  Sixth  street  don't  you  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

^Q.  And  then  the  next  street  is  Fifth  street  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  587  is  between  what  streets  ? 
A.  Between  Fourth  and  Fifth. 
Q.  It  is  on  the  right  hand  side  as  you  go  east  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  AVon't  you  tell  how  wide  the  lot  is  ? 
A.  It  is  twenty-five  feet,  if  I  remember  correctly. 
Q.  Do  your  steps  run  up  both  Avays,  or  one  way  ? 
A.  One  way. 

Q.  It  is  an  English  basement  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Is  it  of  brick  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  Is  it  painted  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  was  it  painted  ? 
A,  Not  since  it  was  built,  some  eight  or  ten  years  ago. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  GGl 

Q.  What  kind  of  finishing  has  it — the  architraves  and  sills  1 

A.  They  are  of  marble. 

Q.  White  are  they  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Which  way  do  the  steps  start  to  go  up  ? 

A.  The  tendency  from  the  top  to  the  bottom  is  east. 

Q.  But  how  high  are  they  1 

A.  There  are,  as  near  as  I  can  remembei",  eight  steps. 

Q.  And  an  English  basement  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  house  is  there  now  just  as  it  was  in  1865  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  precisely  the  same.  There  is  a  little  difference  in  the  painting 
of  the  wood  work,  but  there  is  no  difference  in  the  house. 

Q.  On  the  west  side  of  your  house  there  was  an  open  lot  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  east  side  of  your  house  there  was  a  brick  house  came  up  also  to  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Immediately  adjoining,  with  no  ally  between  I 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  high  is  the  parlor  floor  from  the  basement  floor  ? 

A.  The  exact  height  of  the  steps,  that  I  could  not  exactly  determine. 

Q.  When  you  enter  the  basement,  do  you  enter  on  a  level  with  the  pavement, 
or  do  you  step  down  ? 

A.  You  step  down  two  steps. 

Q.  Then  tlie  floor  of  the  basement  is  below  the  pavement  ? 

A.  Somewhat  below. 

Q.  And  you  reach  the  parlor  floor  by  ascending  the  steps? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mrs.  Frederika  R.  Lambert,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Do  you  reside  in  Washington  city  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Were  you  living  in  Washington  in  1865  1 

A.  I  Avas. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  whereabouts  in  Washington  city  vou  were  living 
in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  587  H  street,  between  4th  and  5th. 

Q.  Which  side  of  H  street  ] 

A.  South. 

Q.  The  house  fronting  north  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  of  the  President's  assassination  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Were  you  residing  in  that  house  on  that  night  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Will  you  be  so  good,  Mrs.  Lambert,  as  to  tell  the  jury  if  anything  occurred 
that  night  after  10  o'clock,  and  if  you  conversed  with  any  one  from  the  parlor 
window  of  your  house.  If  so,  state  the  conversation,  and  who  they  were,  as 
far  as  you  could  judge  from  their  dress. 

A.  Between  11  and  12  o'clock  I  heard  a  voice,  indistinctly,  on  the  street, 
calling  out:  "The  President  was  shot."  I  was  in  the  rear  room  of  my  house, 
in  my  bed  room,  and  I  immediately  got  a  shawl  and  threw  it  around  me  and 
went  down  to  the  front  door  with  the  intention  of  going  out,  but  found  it  was 
too  dump  and  dark.     I  then  turned  round  and  went  into  my  parlor,  my  front 


662  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

room,  on  a  line  with  the  portico.  I  then  opened  the  window  and  saw  two 
soldiers  passing.  I  immediately  asked  them  what  was  the  matter — what  caused 
the  excitement.  One  of  them  spoke  up,  and  said  the  President  was  shot.  I 
asked  him  by  whom  ?  He  said,  by  J,  Wilkes  Booth.  I  asked  him  if  he  saw 
it?  He  said  he  did  not;  that  he  was  not  in  the  theatre,  but  about  there.  I 
then  asked  him  what  so  many  soldiers  were  doing  in  the  city.  I  thought  pro- 
bably there  was  a  mob,  or  some  disturbance ;  but  he  told  me  that  they  had  come 
in  to  witness  a  torchlight  procession,  and  weie  returning  to  Camp  Barry. 

Q.  Did  they  say  they  were  returning  to  Camp  Barry  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Those  whom  I  had  seen  go  by,  he  said,  had  gone  to  Camp 
Bany,  and  that  they  were  on  their  way  there. 

Q.  From  what  window  was  it  you  spoke  to  them  ? 

A.  My  parlor  window. 

Q.  "Will  you  please  describe  the  relative  position  of  your  parlor  to  the  ground 
floor;  how  high  was  it  above  the  ground  floor? 

A.  I  suppose  it  run  up  some  eight  or  ten  steps.  I  cannot  very  well  say  how 
high  it  was. 

Q.  Did  these  two  men  remain  together  when  they  were  replying  to  your 
questions,  or  did  any  one  of  them  step  forward  and  make  a  reply? 

A.  One  stepped  a  little  forward  of  the  other,  and  spoke  to  me.  I  knew  they 
were  soldiers.  They  told  me  they  were;  and  I  saw  from  their  dress  that  they 
were.  I  could  see  only  indistinctly,  because  the  gas  in  my  parlor  was  very  in- 
distinct. 

Q.  Was  it  quite  dark  outside  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  very  dai'k. 

Q.  But  you  could  see  with  sufficient  distinctness  to  see  that  they  were  soldiers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  from  the  reflection  of  my  light. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  It  was  quite  dark  outside  was  it  not,  madame  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  it  was  damp  and  drizzly  weather. 

Q.  What  made  you  go  to  the  front  window,  at  that  hour  of  the  night  ? 

A.  To  learn  if  the  President  was  really  shot. 

Q.  What  made  you  think  about  it  ? 

A,  Because,  when  in  my  room  in  the  rear  of  the  house,  I  indistinctly  heard 
a  voice  in  the  street  say,  "  The  President  is  shot." 

Q.  You  were  in  the  rear  of  the  house  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  The  voice  was,  then,  pretty  loud  ? 

A.  Certainly  ;  the  person  whom  I  heard,  was  calling  out  to  know  where  some 
one  lived.  I  could  not  hear  who  it  was.  He  exclaimed  :  "  The  President  has 
been  shot." 

Q.  It  must  have  been  very  loud  for  you  to  have  heard  it  in  the  rear  of  your 
house  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Were  your  windows  open? 

A.  No,  sir;  my  window  was  not  open. 

Q.  It  was  in  the  middle  of  April,  and  very  dark,  damp,  and  drizzly,  you  say? 

A.  It  was  not  very  dark,  because  I  think  the  moon  would  at  that  time  have 
given  light  had  it  not  been  so  cloudy  and  damp. 

Q.  Where  did  you  first  go  after  you  heard  that  call  ? 

A.  I  went  fii'St  to  the  head  of  my  steps,  to  listen. 

Q.  You  opened  the  door,  did  you  ? 

A.  Hearing  a  voice  very  indistinctly,  I  called  for  my  .shawl. 

Q.  Did  you  open  the  door  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  663 

A.  I  went  down  stairs  and  opened  the  dooi-,  but  finding  it  too  damp  to  go  out 
on  the  portico 

Q.  You  did  that  after  you  heard  this  call  that  the  President  had  been  killed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  went  to  the  door,  did  you  see  anybody  ? 

A.  No  one  at  all. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anybody  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  not  a  soul  stirring  on  the  street. 

Q.  Not  when  j'ou  went  to  the  door  1     But  you  had  heard  this  cry  before  you 
•went  to  the  door  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  got  to  the  door,  it  was  still  f 

A.  Certainly. 

Q.  Then  you  went  back  to  your  room  and  got  a  shawl  ] 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  got  my  shawl  before  I  came  down. 

Q.  You  went  then,  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  went  to  the  front  door. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  front  door,  there  was  nobody  in  the  street  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  Then  what  next  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  then  returned.     Finding  it  too  damp  for  my  health  to  go  upon  the  portico, 
I  walked  into  my  parlor. 

Q.  After  you  got  into  your  parlor,  what  did  you  hear  ? 

A.  I  heard  my  own  voice,  and  tlien  I  raised  the  window. 

Q.  Who  were  you  speaking  to  ? 

A.  To  my  servant,  or  some  one  in  the  house. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember,  except  that  I  was  discussing  whether  or  not  it  was  dan- 
gerous for  me  to  go  the  door. 

Q.  Did  you  say  so  to  the  servant  ? 

A.  I  really  do  not  recollect.     My  purpose — 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  do  not  ask  your  purpose.     You  say  you  heard  a  voice, 
and  that  voice  was  your  own  voice  ? 

A.  I  said  if  I  heard  a  voice  it  was  my  own  voice  ;  I  do  not  remember, 

Q.  What  did  you  say  1 

A.  If  my  voice  was  sounding  I  was  debating  the  question  as  to  the  propriety 
of  my  going  to  the  front  door. 

Q.  To  whom  were  you  speaking  ? 

A.  To  my  servant. 

Q.  Which  servant  ? 

A.  A  colored  woman  named  Margaret. 

Q.  What  did  j\Iargaret  say  as  to  the  propriety  of  your  going  to  the  door  ? 

A.  She  insisted  upon  it  that  it  was  not  proper ;  that,  as  I  was  very  suscepti- 
ble to  cold  I  had  better  go  to  the  window. 

Q.  She  remonstrated  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  this  remonstrance  on  the  part  of  Margaret,  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  went  to  my  parlor  window. 

Q.  You  remember  distinctly  tliat  it  was  dangerous  for  you  to  go  to  the  door  ? 

A.  Oh,  yes  ;  I  presume  so.     It  was  not  a  matter  of  much   importance,  but 
still  she  did  say  so. 

Q.  Margaret  remonstrated  with  you,  and  you  agreed  Avith  her  that  it  was 
unsafe  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  While  you  were  talking  with   Margaret,  did  you  hear   anybody  out  of 
doors  ? 


664  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT, 

A.  No.  I  heard  nobody  out  there  then,  but  I  opened  the  window  for  the 
purpose. 

Q.  While  you  were  talking  with  Margaret,  did  you  hear  any  more  calls  about 
the  President  being  shot  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  heard  it  afterwards. 

Q.  After  you  got  into  the  parlor  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  hesitated  as  to  whether  I  should  open  the  window  until  I  heard  some 
one  coming  ;  but  I  did  open  it. 

Q.  How  did  it  open  1     Did  it  raise,  or  was  it  upon  hinges  ? 

A.  It  raised. 

Q.  Was  there  a  blind  to  your  window  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  an  outside  blind. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  it  was  closed  or  open  ]  . 

A.  I  think  it  was  open. 

Q.  Was  Margaret  in  the  room  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  lift  it  up  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  think  I  lifted  it  myself. 

Q.  After  you  lifted  it  what  did  you  see  ? 

A.  I  saw  just  above  a  good  many  soldiers  going  along. 

Q.  Which  way  were  they  going  ] 

A.  East  from  my  house. 

Q.  How  many  were  there  about  ? 

A.  I  suppose  about  a  dozen. 

Q.  Had  they  guns  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say.     I  do  not  believe  they  had. 

Q.  But  they  were  soldiers  ? 

A.  They  were  dressed  in  soldier's  clothes. 

Q.  Marching  slow  or  fast  1 

A.  Walking  in  an  ordinary  gait. 

Q.  They  were  in  no  hurry  1 

A.  None  that  I  could  discover. 

Q.  What  did  this  one,  that  you  talked  with  out  of  the  window,  tell  you  about 
these  soldiers  ? 

A.  I  asked  him  what  they  were  doing  in  town.  He  told  me  that  they  had 
come  in  to  see  the  torchlight  procession,  and  were  going  to  Camp  Barry.  He 
said  himself  and  companion  were  also  going  there. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  who  his  companion  was  ? 
^A.  Oh,  no. 

Q.  What  more  did  you  say  to  him  ? 

A.  I  asked  him  if  he  saw  Booth.  He  told  me  he  had  not,  that  he  was  not 
in  the  theatre,  but  about  there. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  more  than  this  ? 

A.  Nothing  more  than  what  I  have  stated. 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  more? 

A.  He  only  answered  my  questions. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  them  where  Booth  was  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  them  what  so  many  soldiers  were  doing  in  the  city? 

A.  I  did.  I  told  them  I  thought  it  was  a  mob,  or  something  of  the  kind, 
caused  by  the  assasination  of  the  President. 

Q.  And  you  told  them  you  thought  so  ? 

A.  I  think  I  did. 

Q.  Did  they  both  talk  to  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  only  one. 

Q.  Would  you  know  him  if  you  were  to  see  him  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  665 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  would  be  able  to  distinguish  him,  there  was  such  an  ia 
distinct  light. 

Q.  How  long  did  they  talk  with  you  there  ? 

A.  I  suppose  fi'om  three  to  five  minutes — perhaps  not  as  long. 

Q.  Dirt  they  seem  very  much  excited  ? 

A.  Xot  at  all.  I  remarked  that  they  all  seemed  to  be  very  cool  under  the 
circumstances  ? 

Q.  These  two  men  didn't  seem  to  be  in  any  hurry  at  all  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  they  walked  off,  did  they  walk  in,  a  hurry  ? 

A.  I  did  not  observe  their  motions  when  they  left.  I  had  no  further  business 
with  them,  and  took  no  notice  of  them. 

Q.  They  answered  you  deliberately  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  and  very  respectfully. 

Q.  Had  they  guns  1 

A.  I  presume  not,  as  I  saw  none.  ^ 

Q.  What  had  they  on  their  heads  ? 

A.  I  presume  they  had  caps. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  your  memory  is  about  whether  they  had  caps  on  or  not  1 

A.  They  told  me  they  were  soldiers,  I  did  not  take  any  notice  of  their  dress, 
as  I  didn't  suppose  I  would  ever  be  called  upon  to  identify  them. 

Q.  Did  they  have  soldier's  clothes  on? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  color? 

A.  Blue. 

Q.  Were  they  clothes  with  capes,  or  officers'  clothes  ? 

A.  I  could  not  see  very  distinctly,  but  they  were  not  officers  clothes. 

Q.  Had  they  capes? 

A.  I  think  they  had,  but  I  am  not  certain.  I  know  their  general  appearance 
indicated  them  to  be  soldiers. 

Q.  Had  they  the  same  general  appearance  as  those  who  marched  before  them  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  those  who  marched  before  them. 

Q.  Did  those  that  marched  before  them,  show  any  excitement  ? 

A.  My  window  was  not  open  when  they  passed. 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  that  you  were  to  be  called  here  ? 

A.  I  came  of  my  own  accord. 

Q.  When  did  you  come  of  your  own  accord  ? 

A.  Yesterday.  I  was  reading  the  paper  one  day,  and  seeing  the  testimony 
of  the  witness  who  had  testified  on  this  point,  I  remarked  :  "Why,  here  is  either 
a  false  representation,  or  a  very  strange  coincidence ;  this  conversation  certainly 
took  place  at  my  house,  and  I  was  the  one  who  put  the  questions  to  the  soldiers." 

Q.  Won't  you  tell  ug  whether  these  persons  that  you  talked  with  were  dressed 
in  the  clothes  of  artillerymen  ? 

A.  I  have  no  knowledge  of  the  different  suits  that  soldiers  wear. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  whether  their  clothes  were  light  blue,  or  dark  blue  ? 

A.  I  cannot  remember. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  whether  they  wore  a  jacket,  or  a  long  coat  ? 

A.  I  did  not  observe  the  men  sufficiently  to  know  whether  they  had  on  long 
coats  or  jackets. 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  you  can  tell  anything  at  all  about  the  color  of 
the  clothes  ? 

A.  I  have  already  told  you  that  the  light  was  not  sufficient  for  me  to  observe 
their  clothes,  nor  would  my  attention  have  been  called  to  them  had  the  night 
been  bright  as  day,  imless  by  accident. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  read  this  testimony  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

43 


666  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT. 

A.  A  few  days  ago,  » 

Q.  How  many  1 

A.  I  suppose  three  or  four  ;  it  might  have  been  five  or  six. 

Q.  What  paper  did  you  find  it  in  .' 

A.  The  Evening  Express. 

Q.  When  you  had  read  this,  how  and  when  did  you  make  known  what  you 
have  stated  here  ? 

A.  After  I  had  finished  reading  I  remarked  to  those  in  the  room,  "  Here  is 
either  a  misrepresentation  or  a  very  strange  coincidence.  This  conversation, 
now  purporting  to  come  from  another,  certainly  occurred  at  my  house." 

Q.  After  they  had  passed,  did  you  hear  anything  more  that  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  there  was  a  man  across  the  street,  who  he  was  I  do  not  know, 
relating  to  some  one  the  facts  connected  with  the  killing  of  the  President,  he 
liaving  been  present  and  saw  it,  as  he  stated. 

Q.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  conversation  with  the  soldiers  ? 

A.  After.  * 

Q.  Did  anything  else  occur  after  these  soldiers  left  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  anything. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  by  the  window  ? 

A.  Not  very  long. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  ten  minutes! 

A.  I  was  looking  in  and  out,  being  backwards  and  forwards  at  the  window 
several  times.     I  do  not  know  that  I  remained  there  ten  minutes. 

Q.  At  these  different  times,  when  you  were  backwards  and  forwards  at  the 
window,  did  you  see  any  other  people  passing  ? 

A.  0,  yes,  sir ;  I  saw  a  good  many  soldiers  going  by. 

Q.  Were  they  passing  slowly  or  hurriedly  ? 

A.  Some  seemed  to  be  in  a  hurry  and  others  not. 

Q.  Did  they  say  anything  1 

A.  They  were  talking  to  themselves.     1  did  not  ask  them  any  questions. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  them  say  anything  in  reference  to  the  killing  of  the  Presi- 
dent ? 

A.  They  were  speaking  of  the  matter,  but  I  did  not  hear  what  they  said.  I 
had  already  heard  sufficient  to  convince  me  that  it  was  true. 

Q,.  Did  you  see  anybody  but  soldiers  passing  ? 

A.  There  might  have  been ;  the  light  was  too  indistinct  to  enable  me  to  say. 

Q.  It  was  still  dark  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 
"^  Q,  That  is,  it  was  cloudy  and  drizzly  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  after  these  facts  occurred  to  your  mind,  you  came 
and  spoke  of  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  come  to  my  office  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir,  but  you  were  not  at  home. 
Q.  How  long  have  you  known  me,  madame  ? 
A.  Oh,  ever  since  I  have  known  myself. 
Mr  Riddle.  Your  reputation  is  good. 
Mr.  Bradley.  I  hope  so ;  but  it  is  getting  in  very  bad  repute  in  this  case. 

Margaret  Williams  (colored)  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Who  do  you  live  with  1 

A.  Mrs.  Lambert.  , 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  667 

Q.  Who  were  you  living  with  when  the  President  was  killed  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Lambert. 

Q.  And  you  have  been  living  with  her  ever  since  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  the  President  was  killed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Mrs.  Lambert  calling  upon  you  for  a  shawl  or  anything 
that  night,  after  she  went  to  retire  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  IMrs.  Lambert  do  when  she  got  her  shawl  ? 

A.  Hearing  loud  talking  in  the  street,  she  went  into  the  room  from  the  passage. 

Q.  Did  she  go  to  the  front  door? 

A.  No ;  she  did  not. 

Q.  Did  she  go  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  She  went  to  the  parlor  window. 

Q.  Was  the  window  up  or  down  ? 

A.  Down,  and  she  hoisted  it. 

Q.  Did  she  speak  to  anybody  ? 

A.  Some  soldiers  went  along — a  crowd  first,  and  then  two  soldiers  by  them- 
selves. She  asked  those  two  what  was  the  matter,  and  they  said  the  President 
was  shot.     She  asked  them  who  did  it.     They  told  her  that  Booth  had  done  it. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrbpont  : 

Q.  She  did  not  go  to  the  front  door,  did  she  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  she  did  go  to  the  front  door,  but  I  told  her  to  come  in,  because 
it  was  too  damp  out  there. 

Q.  She  opened  the  front  door,  did  she  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  she  standing  in  the  front  door  t 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  out  on  the  portico. 

Q.  When  she  stood  on  the  portico  at  the  front  door,  did  you  see  anybody  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  any  soldiers  passing  while  she  stood  on  the  portico  ? 

A.  I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  How  long  did  she  stand  on  the  portico  ? 

A.  Not  long. 

Q.  About  how  long — five  or  ten  minutes  ? 

A.  Not  that  long.  She  came  in  on  my  advising  her  to.  I  told  her  it  was 
too  damp  out  there  for  her. 

Q.  Was  it  damp  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  it  raining  or  drizzling  ? 

A.  It  was  about  drizzling. 

Q.  Did  it  drizzle — did  it  succeed  in  that  ?     (Laughter.) 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  it  did  or  not. 

Q.  Was  it  light  or  dark  ? 

A.  I  know  it  was  a  very  dark  night,  because  I  wanted  to  go  to  the  theatre, 
and  she  would  not  let  me  go ;  she  said  it  was  too  damp. 

Q.  Where  did  she  go  after  coming  in  from  the  door  t 

A.  Into  the  parlor. 

Q.  Did  you  stand  by  the  window  when  she  was  in  the  parlor  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  was  right  behind  Mrs.  Lambert,  but  I  was  not  at  the  window. 

Q.  How  many  soldiers  passed  while  you  stood  there  ? 

A.  I  could  not  exactly  say.  I  know  a  great  many  passed.  Two  passed 
when  she  asked  the  question. 

Q.  They  stopped,  did  they  ? 


6GS  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  And  bad  a  conversation  with  her  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  How  were  those  two  dressed  1 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  They  had  guns,  had  they  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.     I  know  they  had  caps  on  their  heads. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  they  had  these  soldiers'  clothes  with  caps  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Q.  Was  there  any  ornament  on  the  caps  ? 

A.  It  was  too  dark,  I  could  not  tell. 

Q.  Did  they  seem  to  be  in  a  hurry  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  the  other  soldiers  also  in  a  hurry  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  did  these  men  talk  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  how  long  it  was. 

Q.  Had  you  heard  anything  before  they  came  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  when  we  were  up  stairs  we  heard  loud  talking,  and  on  hearing 
it  came  down. 

Q.  You  were  both  up  stairs  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  what  room  ? 

A.  She  was  in  her  room. 

Q.  Where  was  her  room  ? 

A.  The  back  chamber  up  stairs. 

Q.  Not  over  the  parlor  story  i 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  with  her  there  ;  what  were  you  doing  f 

A.  I  do  not  remember  exactly  what  I  was  doing. 

Q.  Was  she  going  to  bed? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Preparing  to  go  to  bed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  us  what  you  heard  in  that  back  room  up  stairs  over  the  parlor. 

A.  I  heard  loud  talking  out  in  the  street,  and  heard  something  said  about  the 
President  being  shot. 
_  Q.  I  suppose  you  both  heard  this? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  she  then  do  ? 

A.  After  we  heard  that,  we  went  into  the  little  room  next  to  it. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  after  you  got  into  the  little  room  ? 

A.  She  went  in  there  and  was  going  to  say  something,  but  she  thought  ihej 
would  not  hear  her  and  so  she  came  down  stairs. 

Q.  Then  did  she  go  to  the  porch? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  She  opened  the  door  and  went  on  the  porch  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  went  to  her  and  told  her  it  was  too  damp  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  came  down  stairs  did  you  hear  any  more  calling  about  the 
President  being  killed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  heard  soldiers  going  by  talking. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  them  say  so  as  they  went  by? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  A  great  many  others  ? 


i 


TKIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SDKRATT.  669 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  they  seem  excited  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Were  you  present  tlie  other  day  when  Mrs.  Lambert  mentioned  about  this 
conversation,  to  which  the  witness  had  testified  here  I 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  heard  her  speak  of  it  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir ;  she  read  it  in  the  paper. 
Q.  Did  you  tell  her  then  you  recollected  it  ? 
(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Question  withdrawn.) 

Mrs.  T.  J.  Lambert  recalled. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  whether  you  are  satisfied  this  conversation  was  after  eleven  o'clock. 
A.  Yes,  sir;  between  eleven  and  twelve. 

John  T.  Holahan  sworn  and  examined  : 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  now  reside  ? 

A.  In  Baltimore. 

Q.  In  what  business  are  you  engaged  ? 

A.  I  carry  on  the  stonecuttiug  business  ;  make  tombstones  and  attend  to 
marble  work  generally. 

Q.  Where  were  you  living  in  1S65  ? 

A.  On  H  street,  at  Mrs.  Surratt's,  between  sixth  and  Seventh  Streets. 

Q.  Had  you  a  family  there  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  when  you  went  to  board  there  ? 

A.  The  first  week  in  February.  I  would  not  like  to  locate  the  day  posi- 
tively, but  I  think  on  the  first. 

Q.  While  you  were  there  state  who  else  boarded  in  the  house  besides  yourself. 

A.  Louis  J.  Weichmann  boarded  there,  and  a  Miss  Dean,  a  little  girl  about 
eleven  or  twelve  years  old.  They  were  the  only  pai'ties  who  boarded  in  the 
house. 

Q.  Who  else  lived  there  and  formed  part  of  the  family  at  the  time  you  went? 
Was  Miss  Fitzpatrick  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  she  boarded  in  the  house. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  Miss  Lete  .Jenkins  coming  there  also  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  she  staid  there  for  about  a  week,  I  think. 

Q.  While  you  were  there  did  you  form  the  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Louis  J. 
Weichmann  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  man  there  named  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Weichmann  there  before  you,  or  did  he  come  after  you  ? 

A.  He  was  there  before  me.  When  I  went  to  inquire  for  board  there  he  was 
the  gentleman  who  opened  the  door. 

Q.  After  you  went  there  to  board,  state  whether  there  was  any  intimacy  be- 
tween Atzerodt  and  Louis  Weichmann  or  not  ? 

A.  They  appeared  to  be  very  intimate. 

Q.  State  whether  you  ever  saw  them  come  there  together  or  not? 

A.  Frequently. 


670  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  any  otlier  evidence  of  theirjntiraacy  in  regard  to  clothing, 
or  anything  of  that  kind? 

A.  One  day  I  met  them  on  the  street,  between  Sixth  and  Seventh  streets. 
Atzerodt  had  on  Weichmann's  military  coat  and  cape. 

Q,  While  they  were  in  the  house  together,  will  yon  state  whether  there  was 
any  intimacy  between  them  or  not  1 

A.  They  were  as  intimate  as  friends  could  be. 

Q.  What  room  did  you  occupy  in  the  house  ? 

A.  Front  room,  over  the  parlor.  My  daughter  occupied  the  adjoining  room 
over  the  passage. 

Q.  Your  daughter  is  how  old  ? 

A.  She  is  now  sixteen. 

Q.  She  was  then  about  fourteen? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  room  did  Weichmann  occupy  ? 

A.  The  back  room — the  room  back  of  ray  room. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  knowing  whether  or  not  Atzerodt  was  up  in 
Weichmann's  room  ? 

A.  I  have  seen  him  in  Weichmann's  room  several  times  while  passing  to  and 
from  my  room. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Herold  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Booth  there  ? 

A.  Frequently. 

Q.  In  whose  company  did  you  find  him? 

A.  He  was  generally  in  the  parlor  with  Mrs.  SuiTatt  and  the  ladies, 

Q.  Can  you  tell  whether  he  was  associating  with  Atzerodt  and  Weichman 
or  not  ? 

A .  I  might  say,  that  on  four  occasions  I  have  seen  them  all  together. 

Q.  Atzerodt,  Booth,  and  Weichmann  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  were  you  on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  April  ? 

A.  I  was  in  my  room. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  seeing  the  prisoner  that  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  What  interval  of  time  had  passed  since  you  had  last  seen  him  before  then  ? 

A.  May  be  ten  days  previous. 

Q.  Now  state  all  that  passed  in  your  presence  with  the  prisoner  on  the  night 
of  the  3d  of  April. 

A.  About  nine  o'clock,  or  a  quarter  past  nine,  I  will  not  designate  the  pre- 
cise time,  I  had  just  got  into  bed  when  there  was  a  rap  at  my  ro  om  door.  I  got 
up  and  opened  it,  and  found  the  prisoner  outside.  Says  he,  "  1  would  like  to 
see  you  for  a  minute."  I  put  on  my  pants  and  went  into  his  ro  om,  or  Weich- 
mann's room,  for  they  both  slept  together.  He  then  said  to  me,  "  Have  you  any 
money." 

Q.  Was  Weichmann  present  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Says  Surratt,  "  I  would  like  to  have  some  money."  I  asked 
him  how  much  he  wanted.  Says  he,  "  Fifty  dollars."  I  replied  "You  can  have 
it,"  and  went  into  my  room  and  got  it  out  of  my  vest  pocket  and  handed  it  to 
him.  I  remarked  when  I  gave  it  to  him,  "  Is  that  enough?"  He  says  "  I  should 
like  to  have  ten  dollars  more,  making  sixty  dollars  in  all."  I  went  back  and 
got  ten  dollars  more  and  gave  it  to  him.  He  turned  and  opened  the  door  and 
was  going  out,  when  he  stopped  and  says,  "Take  these,"  handing  two  twenty 
dollar  gold  pieces.  I  replied,  I  don't  want  them,  you  can  keep  them.  You 
are  good  enough  to  me  for  that  amount  of  money."  He  insisted  on  my  taking 
them,  and  finally  I  did.  That  was  the  last  I  saw  of  him  until  I  saw  him  here 
in  court. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  671 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Weicbmann,  at  that  time,  or  any  time  afterwards,  say  anything 
to  you  about  that  money  1 

A.  Yes,  sir.     It  was  on  the  Sunday  following, 

Q.  State  what  he  said. 

A.  We  went  in  company  with  Mrs. 

The  District  Attorney.  Stop,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  Braulev  said  the  court  would  recollect  that  "Weichmann  stated  in  his  ex- 
amination that  Surratt,  on  the  3d  of  April,  exchanged  some  gold  with  Mr.  Hol- 
ahan  for  paper.  He  had  brought  out  the  testimony  in  regard  to  that,  and, 
therefore,  as  far  as  that  was  concerned  had  nothing  to  say.  He  now  proposed 
to  prove  that  on  Sunday,  the  16th  of  April,  when  Weichmann  and  Holahan 
with  the  detectives  started  in  pursuit  of  Surratt,  Weichmann  then  spoke  to  the 
witness  about  this  gold,  and  told  him  where  Surratt  had  gone.  Weichmann 
had  sworn  here  that  he  did  not  know  where  he  had  gone.  He  wanted  to  show 
that  he  did  know  at  that  time,  and  that  their  relations  throughout  were  of  a  most 
intimate  character. 

The  District  Attorney  held  that  counsel,  in  order  to  show  the  existence 
of  intimate  relations  between  them,  if  they  considered  it  a  material  fact, 
would  have  to  prove  it  in  the  same  manner  as  they  would  any  other  material 
fact.  The  admission  of  a  party  to  the  suit  was  always  admissible  in  evidence, 
but  what  the  witness  Weichmann,  or  any  other  witness  may  have  said,  was  not 
admissible  for  the  purpose  of  showing  any  fact,  but  only  admissible  for  the 
purpose  of  contradiction. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  that  as  far  as  theintimacy  was  concerned  the  court  would 
remember  the  questions  he  put  to  the  witness.  He  had  proved  the  closest  in- 
timacy; had  even  proved  that  they  occupied  the  same  room  and  slept  together. 
The  object  was  not  to  contradict  the  fact  of  the  intimacy  but  was  to  give  in  evi- 
dence somthing  Weichmann  said  in  relation  to  somebody  else,  without  ever  hav- 
ing called  his  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  Bradley  remarked  that  it  was  not  in  relation  to  somebody  else,  but  in 
relation  to  the  prisoner  at  the  bar,  showing  that  he  not  only  was  thus  intimate 
with  him,  but  that  he  was  aware  of  where  he  had  gone. 

The  District  Attorney  said  that  in  other  words  it  was  to  prove  what  they 
considered  an  important  fact  in  the  case  by  hearsay  evidence. 

The  Court  said  he  looked  upon  it  as  hearsay  evidence,  and  would  therefore 
rule  the  question  out  as  improper. 

Mr.  Bradley  reserved  an  exception. 

Q.  Now,  beginning  early  in  the  evening  of  the  14th  of  April,  state  all  you 
recollect  of  the  occurrence  that  night. 

A.  I  will  first  say  that  the  employes  of  the  arsenal  had  a  torch-light  pro- 
cession that  night.  In  the  early  part  of  the  evening  I  was  lying  down  on  the 
sofa  in  my  room.  At  7  o'clock — I  knew  it  Avas  seven,  because  I  pulled  out  my 
watch  and  looked  at  the  time — I  got  up  and  asked  my  wife  to  go  down  and  see 
the  procession.  She  declined.  I  then  said  I  would  go  down  myself,  and  did  so. 
I  went  down  as  far  as  the  corner  of  Seventh  street  and  the  avenue,  by  Seldner's 
clothing  store,  and  there  remained  until  the  procession  passed.  After  it  had 
passed  I  walked  up  to  Seventh. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  get  back  to  the  house  ? 

A.  I  was  going  to  tell  you  I  turned  into  D  street  and  got  as  far  as  Eighth, 
at  Baker's  corner.  I  had  before  made  up  my  mind  to  go  to  the  theatre,  but 
when  I  reached  the  corner  of  Eighth  and  D,  I  turned  back  and  went  home.  I 
got  home  at  a  quarter  to  nine. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  Mrs.  Surratt  had  got  back  from  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  she  was  at  home  when  I  got  back. 

Q.  Did  you  see  or  hear  John  Surratt  that  night  about  the  house,  or  anywhere 
else? 

A.  No,  sir. 


672  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  retire? 

A.  I  went  up  to  my  room,  I  suppose  about  a  quarter  past  nine. 

Q.  Were  you  aroused  during  the  night  1  and  if  so,  state  what  passed. 

A.  About  half-past  two  o'clock  my  wife  woke  me.  She  had  heard  the  noise 
made  by  the  rapping  at  the  door,  and  said  to  me,  "  There  are  men  rapping  at 
the  door,  and  they  want  to  get  in  the  house."  She  added,  "They  look  like 
policemen."  They  were  right  down  under  the  door,  and  she  saAV  their  uniforms, 
I  suppose.  I  jumped  up  and  put  my  pants  on,  and  by  the  time  I  had  got 
them  on,  Messrs.  McDevitt  and  Clarvoe  were  at  the  door  in  the  entry  outside 
of  my  room,  up  stairs,  in  the  second  story. 

Q.  Mrs.  Surratt's  room  was  where] 

A.  She  slept  back  of  the  parlor. 

Q.  You  had  the  front  room  over  the  parlor? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  what  passed  when  you  got  to  your  door. 

A.  I  opened  the  door  and  says, ''What's  the  matter."  Either  McDevitt  or 
Clarvoe,  I  don't  know  which,  said,  "Haven't  you  heard  the  news?  "  Says  I, 
"No,  what  is  it?"  he  replied,  "The  President  has  been  assassinated."  Says  I, 
"My  God,  is  that  so,"  or  something  to  that  effect.  "Yes,"  he  said;  and  then 
Clarvoe  showed  me  a  piece  of  his  neck-tie,  which  he  said  he  had  picked  up  in 
the  theatre.  I  invited  them  into  my  room,  when  they  made  a  statement  to  me 
of  all  they  had  heard  concerning  the  assassination.  I  then  went  with  them 
through  the  house,  and  searched  it.     I  saw  them  search  every  place  thoroughly. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  them  going  up  to  the  room  over  the  one  occupied  by 
your  daughter  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  By  whom  was  that  room  occupied  ? 

A.  By  Miss  Anna  Surratt  and  Miss  Jenkins. 

Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  I  mean  the  little  room  over  the  passage  ? 

A.  That  was  the  servant's  room. 

Q.  Did  he  search  the  room  in  which  the  servant  was  ? 

A.  I  opened  the  door,  and  Clarvoe  looked  in.  I  am  not  sure  whether  he 
went  in  or  not. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  the  room  where  Miss  Anna  Surratt  and  Miss  Jenkins 
were  do  you  remember  of  telling  them  to  stop  a  moment,  while  you  apprised 
the  young  ladies  of  their  coming  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  first  went  in  myself  and  told  the  yound  ladies  the  room  was 
to  be  searched. 

Q.  Now  come  to  the  next  morning.  After  you  got  up,  when  and  where  did 
you  first  meet  JMr.  Weichmann  ? 

A.  On  the  morning  of  ihe  15th  I  met  him  in  front  of  the  Patent  Office.  I 
was  reading  the  Chronicle  about  six  o'clock,  and 

Q.  Did  you  accompany  him  from  there  to  Mrs.  Surratt's,  or  separate  from 
him  at  that  point  ? 

A.  I  went  from  there  to  breakfast. 

Q.  State  if  anything  passed  between  you  and  Weichmann  which  induced  you 
to  keep  him  under  your  charge. 

The  DtsTRicT  Attorney.     I  object. 

The  Court.     You  must  not  state  any  conversation. 

Q.  In  point  of  fact,  did  you  lose  sight  of  him  from  the  time  of  meeting  him 
at  the  Patent  Office,  until  he  was  in  custody? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  was  in  my  custody  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  now  offer  to  give  in  evidence  what  Weichmann  said  which 
led  the  witness  to  take  charge  of  him. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  673 

^fr.  PiERREPONT.  I  otject. 

The  CouKT.  That  comes  within  my  former  ruling.     It  is  overruled. 

(Exception  reserved.) 

Q.  Were  you  at  breakfast  with  him  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  whether  your  wife,  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins,  and 
Miss  Dean,  were  all  at  breakfast  that  morning  or  not  ? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  at  what  time  Miss  Anna  Surratt  came  in — whether 
she  was  late  or  not  ? 

A.  We  were  pretty  near,  if  not  quite,  through  breakfast  when  she  came  in. 
I  think  we  were  done  breakfast. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  she  had  been  unwell  the  night  before  1 

A.  She  had  been. 

Q.  That  morning,  at  breakfast,  did  Mr.  Weichmann  say  to  you  and  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt that  he  had  his  suspicions  about  this  business,  and  he  was  going  to  state 
what  he  knew  about  it  to  the  government  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     He  made  no  such  statement. 

Q.  Did  he  state  he  would  go  and  state  who  he  had  seen  in  Booth's  company, 
and  do  all  he  could  to  bring  those  parties  to  justice? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Please  state  whether  anything  was  said  upon  that  subject,  and,  if  any- 
thing, what  was  said,  and  by  whom. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  make  this  proposition  on  this  ground,  your  honor  :  The 
foundation  for  contradicting  Weichmann  in  the  first  instance  was  laid,  and,  there- 
fore, it,  of  course,  may  be  introduced  for  that  purpose.  A  conversation  was  also 
proved  in  which  Mrs.  Surratt  is  alleged  to  have  participated.  I  will  read  from 
that  portion  of  Weichmann's  testimony ; 

"  Q.  You  did  not  see  John  there  that  night  ?  A.  No,  sir.  1  said  to  Mrs. 
Surratt  and  Mr.  Holahan  at  the  table  that  I  had  my  suspicions  about  this 
business,  and  I  was  going  to  the  government  and  state  my  suspicions  about 
it ;  state  who  I  had  ever  seen  in  Booth's  company  ;  and  do  all  I  coidd  to  bring 
these  parties  to  justice.  Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  government  1  (Objected  to  by 
Mr.  Bradley.)  The  Court.  He  may  state  whether  he  gave  information  to  the 
government,  but  not  detail  any  conversation  he  had.  I  went  to  Superintendent 
Richards's  headquarters.  Mr.  Pierrepomt.  You  need  not  go  into  particulars. 
I  simply  want  to  know  if  you  did  go  and  give  information.  Q.  You  stated 
that  Mr.  Holahan  was  in  the  house  when  you  went  out  to  give  information 
to  the  government.  What  did  you,  or  Mr.  Holahan,  or  Mr.  McDevitt,  or  any 
of  these  parties  do  1  A.  Mr.  Hollahan  was  with  me  when  I  went  to  the 
Metropolitan  Police  headquarters,  and  stated  what  he  knew  to  McDevitt. 
We  went  to  the  lower  portion  of  Maryland  that  day.  Q.  Who  went  ?  A. 
McDevitt,  Bigley,  Clarvoe,  Mr.  Hollahan,  and  others.  Q.  Where  did  you  go 
to  ? " 

The  Court.  I  think  it  is  competent  for  this  witness  to  state  whatever  Avas 
said  in  reference  to  this  subject,  as  contained  in  the  answer  of  the  witness 
Weichmann. 

Mr.  Bradley.  As  to  what  Weichmann  said  ? 

The  Court.  Yes,  sii\ 

]Mr.  PiERREPONT.  We  do  not  object  to  that. 

Q.  Was  anything  said  by  Weichmann  as  to  his  suspicions  ? 

A.  If  you  will  allow  me  I  will  make  a  statement  of  what  was  said  at  the 
table. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  No,  sir. 

WiT.NESs.  What  I  am  going  to  state  will  not  interfere  with  either  side. 


G74  TRIAL   OF   JOHN   H.   SURRATT. 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT,  We  cannot  tell,  you  know,  Mr.  Holahaa,  anything  about 
it.     Therefore  we  want  to  confine  the  evidence  within  the  legal  rules. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  propose  to  give  substantive  proof  of  what  the  conversation 
was  at  the  breakfast  table  that  morning.     Weichmann  has  spoken  of  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  "We  have  already  stated  that  we  do  not  object  to  anything 
Weichmann  said  on  this  subject  at  the  breakfast  table. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  am  speaking  of  the  conversation  at  which  Weichmann  was 
present,  and  in  which  he  took  part — a  conversation  between  Mr.  Holahan  and 
himself. 

Witness.  I  will  make  my  statement,  and  then  you  can  object  to  what  I  have 
said.     (Laughter.) 

The  Court.  Just  state  what  Mr.  Weichmann  said. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Just  start  at  where  he  commenced  to  talk  on  this  subject. 

A.  I  bought  a  paper,  and  he  read  it  at  the  breakfast  table. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Never  mind  that.    Weichmann  didn't  say  he  read  the  paper. 

Witness.  I  say  he  did. 

Mr.  Bradley.  What  did  he  say  then  ? 

A.  He  said  nothing  at  all. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Can  I  give  in  evidence  your  honor  what  Mr.  Holahan  said  on 
that  subject  in  his  presence  ? 

Witness.  He  made  no  remarks  at  all  about  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Nor  you  either. 

Witness.  No,  sir. 

Q.  At  that  time,  and  in  your  presence,  did  you  bear  Anna  Surratt  say  that 
the  death  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was  no  more  than  the  death  of  a  negro  in  the 
army  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object.  If  your  honor  will  look  at  the  testimony  on 
page  334  you  will  see  that  that  matter  was  all  brought  out  on  cross-examination, 
and  that  we  never  asked  a  word  on  the  subject.  It  is  a  very  plain  principle  of 
law  that  they  cannot  bring  out  a  matter  on  cross-examination,  and  then  call  a 
witness  to  contradict  what  is  thus  brought  out. 

The  Court.  (After  having  examined  the  testimony  referred  to.)  I  do  not 
think  this  testimony  ought  to  be  admitted.  The  testimony  of  the  witness, 
Weichmann,  on  this  point  was  an  irrelevant  and  collateral  matter,  brought  out  on 
cross-examination,  and  therefore  the  answer  must  be  accepted. 

Exception  reserved. 

Mr.  Bradley.  On  page  333  your  honor  will  find  the  following: 

"  Q.  You  have  stated  that  the  morning  after  the  assassination  you  met  Mr. 
Holahan  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q-  Where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

"  A.  At  the  corner  of  Seventh  and  F  streets,  right  in  front  of  the  post  office. 
He  was  coming  from  the  direction  of  Tenth  and  F  streets. 

"  Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  passed  between  you  and  him  at  that  time  1 

"  A.  We  talked  together.  I  told  him  of  my  suspicions,  and  everything  else. 
He  told  me  he  thought  it  was  Atzerodt  who  had  assassinated  the  Secretary  of 
State.     We  then  went  round  to  breakfast. 

"  Q.  Is  that  all  that  passed  as  well  as  you  recollect  ? 

"  A.  That  is  all  I  recollect." 

Now,  I  propose  to  ask  the  witness  if  any  such  conversation  did  take  place. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object. 

The  Court.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  subject  to  the  same  objection  as  the  other. 

Exception  reserved. 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  start  now  after  breakfast.  Where  did  you  go  after  break- 
fast— in  company  with  whom  ? 

A.  I  went  away  in  company  with  Mr.  Weichmann. 

Q.  Where? 


i 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  675 

A.  We  went  to  the  police  headquarters — Superintendent  Ricliards's.  I  tbei-e 
delivered  liim  up,  reporting  to  Messrs.  McDevitt  and  Clarvoe  that 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  I  object  to  the  witness  stating  what  he  said  to  Mr.  Clarvoe 
and  McDevitt. 

The  Court.  You  may  state  the  fact  of  putting  him  in  custody,  but  you  can- 
not state  any  conversations  that  led  to  it. 

Mr.  Bradley.  All  we  propose  is  to  give  the  charge  on  which  he  was  put  in 
custody. 

Mr.  PiBRREPOMT.  You  cannot  give  it  unless  you  do  so  in  the  legal  way. 

The  Court.  I  have  overruled  that. 

Exception  reserved. 

Q.  In  point  of  fact,  was  Mr.  Weichmann  put  in  charge  of  the  officer  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  From  that  time  forth  until  as  late  as  the  18th  or  the  20th  of  April  were 
you  in  company  with  the  officers,  and  was  Mr.  Weichmann  in  their  custody  or 
not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  he  was  under  arrest  all  the  time. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Weichmann  state  anything  to  you  about  his  clothes  being  in  wash 
at  Mrs.  Surratt's  at  that  time  ? 

Objected  to;  objection  sustained.     Exception  reserved. 

Q.  Go  on  and  give  a  statement  of  where  you  were  with  Mr.  Weichmann  from 
the  morning  of  the  15th  and  for  ten  days  following. 

A.  On  the  morning'  of  the  15th  I  left  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  about  seven  o'clock. 
I  went  down  with  Weichmann  to  the  office  of  Superintendent  Richards.  While 
we  were  there  the  officers  took  Weichmann  down  to  get  horses  to  take  them  down 
in  the  country.  When  they  came  back  they  had  horses.  One  of  the  officers, 
Mr.  McDevitt,  was  unable  to  ride  a  horse,  and  so  he  went  in  a  wagon,  or  carry- 
all.    When  he  came  back  to  his  office,  I  told  him 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Never  mind  what  you  told  him. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Did  you  go  and  get  a  carriage  or  a  horse  1 

Witness.  I  went  and  hired  a  buggy,  having  to  give  $100  security  for  it. 

Q.  Did  you  go  with  him  ? 

A.  I  overtook  the  party  five  miles  below  the  Eastern  Branch  ;  paid  for  the 
buggy,  and  went  down  as  far  as  Piscataway.  Some  fifteen  or  twenty  of  us  met 
there,  Weichmann  among  the  number.     I  paid  the  whole  bill  for  dinner. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Never  mind  about  that. 

Witness.  After  we  left  Piscataway  we  went  down  five  or  six  miles,  and  then 
came  back  with  Messrs.  McDevitt  and  Weichmann.  We  arrived  here  between 
nine  and  ten  o'clock  on  Saturday  night.  We  drove  to  the  Third  ward  police- 
station,  near  the  corner  of  H.  After  McDevitt  went  in  there,  and  was  going 
from  there  to  the  station-house,  he  told  Weichmann 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.     Never  mind  that. 

Q.  What  did  he  do  with  him  ? 

A.  He  kept  him  all  night  in  the  station-house. 

Q.  What  did  you  next  do  after  that  1 

A.  At  a  quarter  to  ten  o'clock  McDevitt  left  the  station-house ;  I  told  him  I 
would  go  home.     He  said 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.    Never  mind  what  he  said. 

Q.  Was  it  arranged  that  you  should  do  anything  more  ? 

A.  I  was  to  meet  him  at  ten  o'clock.  I  went  home  and  then  went  and  hired 
a  carriage,  and  went  up  to  Secretary  Stanton  to  get  a  special  train  to  go  to 
Baltimore. 

Q.  Did  anything  happen  as  you  were  going  up  to  Secretary  Stanton's,  or  in 
coming  back  from  there ;  or  did  you  go  back  home  afterwards? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  go  home  at  all  until  we  got  through  and  found  we  had 
failed  in  our  mission.  At  three  o'clock  I  met  McDevitt  on  Seventh  street  and 
H,  and  went  home  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house. 


676  TRIAL  OP  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Q.  When  you  went  back  to  the  house  did  you  get  any  clothes  1 

A.  I  went  to  my  room  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  and  slept  there  until  Sunday 
morning.  Sunday  morning  at  6  o'clock  I  went  to  the  office  of  Superintendent 
of  Police  and  there  met  McDevitt. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Weichmann  there  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  he  was  still  there.  I  was  there  pretty  much  all  the  morning. 
At  11.15 — I  think  that  Avas  the  time  the  train  left — we  went  to  Baltimore, 
Weichmann,  McDevitt,  and  myself. 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  there  ? 

A.  Until  Monday  morning.  We  came  over  from  Baltimore  on  the  first 
train  Monday  morning. 

Q.  When  did  you  leave  again  ? 

A.  Monday  evening, 

Q.  Before  you  left  did  you  go  home  again  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  articles  there  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  they  were. 

A.  I  changed  my  shirt  and  got  a  couple  of  handkerchiefs  off  the  bed.  The 
washerwoman  came  in  on  Sunday  morning  just  about  the  time  my  wife  was 
leaving.  She  did  not  come  on  Saturday.  The  clothes  were  spread  out  on  the 
bed,  the  various  articles,  shirts,  handkerchiefs,  &c.,  being  in  piles  to  themselves. 

Q.  You  say  you  got  a  couple  of  handkerchiefs.  State  if  either  of  those 
handkerchiefs  was  marked  ;  and  if  so,  how  it  was  marked. 

A.  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  Any  number  on  it  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  positively  about  the  number.  I  did  not  recognize  the 
number  at  all. 

Q.  What  was  the  other  mark  ? 

A.  Nothing  but  the  name  that  I  recollect. 

Q.  Was  the  other  one  marked  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley.  One  was  yours  and  the  other  had  John  H.  Surratt  on  it. 

Q.  State  where  you  went. 

A.  At  3  o'clock — it  might  have  been  3.15  when  the  train  left — but  before 
leaving,  by  the  afternoon  train,  Clarvoe  one  of  the  detectives  of  the  Metropoli- 
tan police  force,  went  with  me  to  the  house  to  get  my  overcoat.  I  thought  I 
might  want  it  on  the  road,  as  it  was  a  little  cool.  While  there  he  saw  me  take 
the  handkerchief  off  the  bed.  We  then  went  to  the  depot  and  took  the  train 
for  Philadelphia.  We  got  to  Philadelphia  about  half  past  11  or  12  o'clock, 
stopped  all  day  Tuesday  in  Philadelphia,  and  while  there  Clarvoe  arrested  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Selistine. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  to  New  York  ? 

A.  Wednesday  morning. 

Q.  Where  from  there  1 

A.  Kept  on  to  Canada. 

Q.  Where  did  you  stay  that  night  1 

A.  In  Burlington,  Vermont. 

Q.  State  whether  you  rested  at  all  in  the  depot,  and  if  so,  at  what  time  1 

A.  We  stopped  at  the  hotel,  at  Burlington,  and  got  supper,  and  then  went 
out  and  bought  some  things.  I  recolleot  buying  a  shirt,  a  couple  of  handker- 
chiefs and  a  pair  of  socks.     We  then  came  back  and  went  to  bed. 

Q.  That  was  the  evening  of  the  20th  ? 

A.  It  was  Wednesday  evening,  the  19th. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  there  until  the  morning  or  not  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  was  woke  up  by  the  watchman  in  the  hotel.     We  then  went 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  677 

to  the  depot.  We  were  either  ahead  of  time,  or  the  train  was  late  ;  so  I  laid 
down  on  the  settee  there  until  the  train  started. 

Q.  Was  there  anybody  with  you  ? 

A.  Weichmann,  McDevitt,  and  Bigley. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  discover  that  you  had  lost  that  handkerchief,  and  if 
so,  when  and  where  ? 

A.  I  discovered  at  Essex  Junction  that  I  had  lost  it. 

Q.  Was  it  the  first  stopping  place  after  leaving  Burlington  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  or  not  it  was  the  first  stopping  place,  but  it  was 
just  a  little  after  sunrise  when  we  got  there,  between  5  and  G  o'clock  in  the 
morning. 

Q.  What  handkerchiefs  or  handkerchief  did  you  find  you  had  lost  ? 

A.  The  way  I  came  to  miss  it  was,  1  had  my  tobacco  in  my  overcoat  pocket, 
and  in  searching  for  my  tobacco,  I  found  my  tobacco  and  handkerchief  were 
both  gone. 

Q.  You  found  your  handkerchiefs  were  gone  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     They  were  dirty  because  I  had  put  them  in 

Q.  Was  either  of  those  handkerchiefs  marked,  and  if  so  how  ? 

A.  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  You  then  went  on  to  Canada. 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  how  long  after  that  was  it  before  you  returned  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say.  I  think  we  were  gone  ten  days  altogether.  We  arrived 
here  Saturday  morning. 

The  court  here  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION. 

On  the  reassembling  of  the  court,  the  examination  of  John  T.  Holahan  was 
resumed. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  I  want  to  understand  what  you  said  with  reference  to  that  handkerchief 
whether  it  had  a  number  on  it  or  not  ? 

A.  There  was  a  number  on  it. 

Q.  But  you  cannot  recollect  the  number  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  obtained  that  handkerchief  from  the  bed  in  your  room  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  your  washing  done] 

A.  I  think  it  was  done  the  last  week  or  two  in  the  house.  I  am  satisfied 
about  that. 

Q.  Do  you  know  about  what  time  of  the  week  ? 

A.  Monday  or  Tuesday. 

Q.  Were  you  about  the  house  on  the  Saturday  after  the  assassination  1 

A.  Not  after  7  o'clock.  I  might  have  been  at  half-past  six  on  Saturday.  I 
did  not  enter  the  house  until  10  o'clock  Saturday  night. 

Q.  You  say  that  towards  morning  while  you  were  at  Burlington  you  went 
into  the  depot  before  it  was  time  for  the  cars  to  start;  that  they  were  detained, 
or  something  of  that  sort. 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  we  waited  for  the  train. 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  how  long  you  remained  there  ? 

A.  It  might  have  been  twenty  minutes  or  half  an  hour. 

Q.  You  say  John  Surratt  was  at  his  mother's  on  the  3d  of  April  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether  there  was  any  concealment  about  his  being  there. 

A.  No,  sir. 


678  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SITRRATT. 

Q.  Were  you  confined  in  Carroll  prison  at  the  same  time  that  Weichmann 
was  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Weichmann  in  regard  to  what  had 
passed  between  him  and  Mr.  Stanton  as  to  any  statement  he  should  make  in 
regard  to  the  assassination  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Bradlkv,  I  now  offer  to  give  in  evidence  what  was  said  on  that 
subject.  I  think  I  interrogated  Mr.  Weichmann  very  fully  in  regard  to  the 
matter. 

[Mr.  Bradley  being  unable  at  the  moment  to  find  the  examination  referred  to, 
it  was  agreed  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  renew  the  offer  at  any  time  before 
the  witness  retired  from  the  stand.] 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrbpont: 

Q.  Wont  you  tell  the  jury  what,  if  anything,  occurred  in  this  slight  recess 
that  we  have  had  to  change  your  mind  in  regard  to  the  handkerchief  being 
numbered 

A.  Nothing  has  changed  my  mind.  It  was  numbered  but  I  have  no  recol- 
lection of  the  number. 

Q.  Did  you  have  your  attention  called  to  the  fact  as  to  whether  it  had  a 
number  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  know  there  was  a  number  on  the  handkerchief. 

Q.  Have  you  had  your  attention  called  to  that  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  By  nobody  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Heard  nothing  at  all  about  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  not  said  a  word  on  the  subject,  and  nobody  said  anything  to 
you? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Before  the  recess  you  stated  twice,  did  you  not,  that  it  had  no  number  on  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir,  I  did  not  state  anything  of  the  kind.  There  was  no  question 
asked  rae  about  the  number  at  all. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Well,  we  will  leave  that  to  the  notes  and  to  the  memory 
of  men. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Very  well. 

Q.  You  now  say  it  had  a  number  on  it  ? 

A.  There  was  a  number  on  it. 

Q.  What  number? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  it  had  a  number  ? 

A.  There  was  a  figure  on  it ;  I  could  not  state  what  it  was. 

Q.  What  besides  a  figure  ? 

A.  There  was  something  after  the  name. 

Q.  What  was  it  1  Was  it  n-u  m-b-e-r  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not  see  any  n-u-m-b-e-r  on  it. 

Q.  Was  there  a  N-o  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  it  was.     I  know  there  was  a  figure  after  the  name. 

Q.  Was  there  a  N-o  before  the  figure  1 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it ;  there  was  something 
after  the  name,  but  I  do  not  know  what  it  was. 

Q.  Was  it  following  it  on  the  same  line,  or  immediately  under  it  ? 

A.  It  was  on  the  same  line ;  I  think  so. 

Q.  Didn't  you  say  that  Weichmann  was  arrested  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  679 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  arrested  him  ? 

A.  He  was  put  under  arrest  by  McDevitt  and  Clarvoe. 

Q.  Where? 

A.  Both  were  standing  on  the  steps  of  the  Metropolitan  Police  headquarters. 

Q.  Did  they  tell  him  they  arrested  him  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  he  know  he  was  arrested  ? 

A.  He  did  not  know  it  until  quarter  to  ten  on  Saturday  night. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  he  found  it  out  ? 

A.  After  leaving  the  third  ward  police  station  on  Saturday  night,  McDevitt 
told  him  he  would  have  to  go  to  the  police  (quarters  and  stay  all  night ;  that  he 
was  under  arrest.     I  knew  it  in  the  morning. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  Weichmanu  knew  of  it? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  under  arrest  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  went  with  Mr.  Weichmann  to  Canada  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Were  you  in  his  charge  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  was. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  paper  before  ?  (Handing  witness  an  order  consti- 
tuting himself,  Weichmann,  and  McDevitt  special  officers  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment.) 

A,  I  have  seen  the  original.     That  is  not  correct ;  my  name  is  spelt  wrong. 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT.  This  is  a  certified  copy. 

Q.  With  the  exception  you  speak  of,  it  is  right  ? 

A.  I  think  it  is. 

Q.  Then  you  and  Weichmann  were  specially  detailed  together  ? 

A.  Will  you  allow  me  to  make  an  explanation  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPo.\T,  Will  you  answer  my  question?  I  will  repeat  it.  State 
whether  you  went  in  obedience  to  this  order. 

A.  I  did. 

Mr.  Bra  OLE  V.  Now  you  can  explain. 

Witness.  On  Monday  morning  after  we  camebackfrom  Baltimore — McDevitt, 
AVeichmann,  and  myself — McDevitt  went  to,  I  think  it  was.  Colonel  Baker's, 
and  got  transportation. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT.  That  is  not  explaining  this  order. 

A.  Yes,  sir,  as  yon  will  see  in  a  moment.  He  went  and  got  transportation. 
If  he  had  told  Baker  and  the  provost  marshal  that  Weichman  and  myself  had 
boarded  in  that  house,  we  would  never  have  gone  to  Canada.  He  represented 
to  the  department  that  he  wanted  us  to  go  with  him. 

Mr.  PiERREPON'T.  Are  you  through  with  the  explanation?  If  you  are,  I 
will  proceed  with  the  examination. 

Witness.  Well,  go  ahead. 

Q.  Did  you  go  under  this  order  with  Weichmann  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  he  with  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  We  went  from  here  to  Baltimore,  and  from  Baltimore  to  Philadelphia,  and 
stopped  in  Philadelphia  on  Monday  night. 

Q.  You  told  us  on  the  direct  examination  that  you  went  back  to  the  house 
before  you  left,  and  got  a  handkerchief? 

A.  That  was  on  Monday. 

Q.  What  time  of  day  ? 


680  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Between  one  and  three  o'clock — -just  before  leaving  for  the  cars ;  about 
two  o'clock. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  take  the  cars  on  Monday  ? 

A.  The  three  o'clock  train  ;  it  might  have  been  3.15. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  get  these  clothes  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

A.  In  my  room. 

Q.  Where  were  the  clothes  1 

A.  Spread  on  the  bed. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  long  they  had  been  there  1 

A.  T  think  they  were  brought  in  on  Sunday  morning ;  they  must  have  been, 
because  the  bed  was  made  up. 

Q.  What  morning  was  this  ? 

A.  This  was  evening. 

Q.  The  evening  of  what  day  ? 

A.  Monday. 

Q.  You  had  slept  there  Sunday  night,  hadn't  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Hadn't  your  wife  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     My  wife  left  Sunday  morning. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  the  clothes  were  put  there  ? 

A.  It  must  have  been  on  Sunday  morning. 

Q.  Why  must  it  have  been  1 

A.  Because  when  my  wife  left  early  on   Sunday  morning  and  went  to  hei 
mother's,  the  bed  was  made  up,  and  when  I  came  back 

Q.  When  you  left  the  clothes  were  not  on  the  bed  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  guess  not. 

Q.  They  were  on  Monday,  in  the  afternoon  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  not  that  the  first  time  you  ever  saw  them  on  the  bed  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  had  been  placed  there  five  minutes  or  two 
days  before  you  got  them  1 

A.  They  had  been  placed  there  between  Sunday  morning  and  the  time  I  got 
them. 

Q.  For  aught  you  know,  they  may  have  been  placed  there  two  minutes  before 
you  got  them  ? 

A.  Possibly. 

Q.  After  you  got  these  handkerchiefs,  what  did  you  do  with  them  ? 

A.  Put  them  in  my  pocket. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  next  ? 

A.  Went  north. 

Q.  Wiiat  was  the  first  place  you  went  to  ? 

A.  The  cars. 

Q.  What  time  did  the  cars  leave  ? 

A.  About  three  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  on  Monday  afternoon  1 

A.  I  have  just  told  you  I  went  to  the  cars. 

Q.  After  you  got  to  the  cars  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Went  on  to  Philadelphia. 

Q.  That  night  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,.  You  did  not  stay  in  Baltimore  that  night  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  about  that  ? 

A.  Positive. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  1 


TKIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  G81 

A.  McDevitt,  Clarvoe,  Bigley,  autl  Weichmanu. 
Q.  What  time  did  you  get  into  Philadelphia? 
A.  About  half  past  eleven. 
Q.  Where  did  you  go  to  then  ? 
A.  To  a  hotel,  corner  Eleventh  and  Market  streets. 
Q.  Did  you  all  go  together  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  there  that  night  1 
A.  We  did. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  the  next  day  ? 
A.  Clarvoe  arrested  a  man  by  the  name  of  Selinstine. 
Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  was  in  company  with  Clarvoe  the  whole  morning. 
Q.  Did  you  go  out  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia  the  next  day  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  sleep  on  Tuesday  night  ? 

A.  We  did  not  sleep  auy where  Tuesday  night ;  ou  the  cars,  if  anywhere. 
Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  Philadelphia  ? 
A.  I  think  about  twelve  midnight,  or  somewhere  along  there. 
Q.  Midnight  of  what  night  ? 

A.  Tuesday  night ;  whatever  time  the  train  leaves. 
Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 
A.  To  New  York. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  New  York  w  hat  time  Avas  it  ? 
A.  It  was  daylight. 

Q.  Then  you  got  to  New  York  on  the  19th,  didn't  you  'I 
A.  Y'es,  sir 

Q.  Wednesday,  the  19th  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  got  to  New  Y'"ork,  on  Wednesday,  the  19th  of 
April  ? 

A.  We  took  something  to  eat. 
Q.  When  did  you  leave  there  ? 
A.  In  the  morning,  at  seven  o'clock. 
Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 
A.  Up  the  Hudson  river  road. 
Q.  To  what  point  1 

A.  We  did  not  go  to  any  point,  because  we  were  going  to  Canada. 
Q.  Where  did  you  stop  that  night 
A.   Burlington. 

Q.  'J'hen  you  got  to  Burlington  that  night  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  night  of  Wednesday,  the  19th  of  April. 
Q.  Y'^ou  were  all  together  there  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  there? 

A.  Went  to  a  hotel.     I  do  not  know  what  the  name  of  it  was. 
Q.  Did  you  enter  your  names  ? 
A.  W^e  did. 

Q.  Did  you  enter  your  own  names,  or  false  ones  ? 
A.  Mr.  Bigley,  I  think,  entered  the  names.     He  entered  false  ones. 
Q.  Y'ou  all  travelled  under  assumed  names? 
A.  Y^es,  sir. 

Q.  What  were  those  names? 
A.  I  remember  Bigley 's  name  was  Porter. 
Q.  What  was  your  name  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember.     McDevitt's  name  was  McGue. 
44 


682  '  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Q.  What  was  Weichmaun's  name  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection.  One  name  was  Thompson,  I  do  not  know  whether 
that  was  my  name  or  Weichmann's. 

Q,  At  what  time  did  you  go  to  the  hotel  ? 

A.  It  was  about  dark,  or  after  dark. 

Q.  What  did  you  then  do  1 

A.  We  got  supper,  washed,  and  Aveut  out,  and  got  a  shirt;  I  bought  a  shirt 
for  Weichraann. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  ? 

A.  I  won't  he  certain  whether  Bigley  or  McDevitt  went  with  me. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  and  Bigley  return  to  the  hotel  1 

A.  We  had  not  been  out  more  than  an  hour. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  to  bed  1 

A.  We  went  to  bed  as  soon  as  we  returned. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  number  of  your  room  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say. 

Q.  Who  slept  in  the  room  with  you  ?  > 

A.  That  1  could  not  say. 

Q.  Cannot  you  tell  which  of  your  number  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  because  I  made  no  memorandum  of  it. 

Q.  One  of  them  did  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  two  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  whether  one  or  two. 

Q.  Where  did  you  have  that  handkerchief  that  night  1 

A.  I  guess  I  had  it  in  my  overcoat  pocket. 

Q.  Where  did  you  have  it  the  next  morning  when  you  dressed  yourself? 

A.  I  guess  in  my  overcoat  pocket. 

Q.  That  was  the  morning  of  Thursday,  the  20th,  was  it  not  1 

•A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  think  that  handkerchief  was  in  your  overcoat  pocket  on  Thurs- 
day, the  20th  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  You  are  positive,  that  on  Thursday,  the  20th,  it  wag  in  your  overcoat 
pocket  1 

A.  I  am. 

Q.  You  took  the  cars  that  day  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  went  to  Essex  Junction  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  there  you  discovered  the  loss  of  the  handkerchief? 

A.  It  was. 

Q    You  knew  you  had  it  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  I  knew  I  had  it  the  night  previous  in  my  overcoat  pocket.  I  know  it  be- 
cause m}'  tobacco  was  in  my  overcoat  pocket. 

Q.  Tlie  tobacco  makes  you  positive  about  the  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  When  you  got  to  Essex  Junction,  how  did  you  happen  to  find  out  it  was 
gone  ? 

A.  Well,  there  was  a  house  about  two  hundred  yards  from  the  Junction,  and 
I  had  asked  some  of  the  men  on  the  cars  if  it  was  not  a  drinking  house,  and  in- 
vited some  of  ihem  to  go  and  get  a  drink.  It  was  early  in  the  morning,  and 
not  feeling  well,  I  went  up  and  got  a  drink. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you? 

A.  I  went  alone. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  morning  did  you  get  the  drink  ? 


1 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    11.    SURRATT.  683' 

A,  Between  four  and  five  o'clock. 

Q.  After  sunrifie  ? 

A.  Early  iu  the  morning. 

Q.  What  then  happened  after  you  got  the  drink  ? 

A.  I  wanted  a  chew  of  tobacco.  When  1  came  back,  and  got  my  overcoat 
from  these  parties  who  were  with  me,  and  who  had  charge  of  it,  I  searched  in 
the  pockets,  but  there  was  no  tobacco  nor  any  handkerchief. 

Q.  How  much  tobacco  had  you  in  it  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  I  guess  I  had  what  we  call  three  ten  cent  plugs. 

Q.  Was  the  handkerchief  wrapped  around  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  they  both  in  the  same  pocket  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  supposed  they  both  fell  out  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  sort  of  weather  was  it  early  in  the  morning,  on  the  20th  ? 

A.  It  was  a  clear  morning,  but  pretty  cool  where  we  were,  in  Vermont. 

Q.  Did  you  wear  your  overcoat  ? 

A.  No,  sir;   I  had  thick  winter  clothes  on,  and  therefore  I  had  no  need  for  it- 

Q.  Was  there  anything  else  in  the  pocket,  on  the  morning  of  the  20th,  except 
this  tobacco  and  the  handkerchief? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  that  handkerchief  since  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  think  you  would  know  it  if  you  were  to  see  it?  • 

A.  Possibly  I  might  recognize  it. 

Q.  You  are  sure  about  the  date  ? 

A.  I  am  as  positive  as  1  am  that  I  am  now  looking  at  you. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  you  had  left  there  on  the  20th  of  April  ? 

A.   We  continued  on  our  road  to  Canada. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  get  to  Canada  ? 

A.  It  was  early  in  the  afternoon  ;  I  think  it  might  have  been  one  or  tw« -o'clock. . 

Q.  What  hotel  did  you  go  to  t 

A.  I  think  to  the  Oswego — some  such  name  as  that.     There  are  duly  three- 
hotels  there  of  any  account. 

Q.  You  know  Mr.  Bigley  well,  don't  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Is  he  in  the  army  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  he  may  be. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  Mr.  Bigley  that  you  lost  that  handkerchief  at  St.  Albans  V 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not,  at  any  time,  tell  Mr.  Bigley  that  you  lost  it  ai  St.  Albans  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Weichmann  well,  who  was  with  you  ? 

A.  I  knew  him  well. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  you  left  it  under  your  pillow,  at  the  hotel  ? ' 

A.  No,  sir;  it  is  a  falsehood. 

Q.  You  did  not  tell  him  so  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  is  a  falsehood. 

Q.  It  is  a  falsehood,  is  it  ?     AVhat  is  a  falsehood  ? 

A.  It  is  a  falsehood,  my  leaving  that  handkerchief  under  the  pMl'ow. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  whether  you  left  it.     1  asked  you  if  you  said  you  did  ? 

A.  I  did  not  say  1  did. 

Q.  Were  you  with  Mr.  Weichmann  all  the  time  in  Canada?: 

A.  No. 

Q.  Were  you  and  Clarvoe  and  Bigley  with  Weichmann  in  Canada  ?' 


684  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Clarvoe  did  not  go  to  Canadra  wheu  we  first  went  there. 

Q.  Then  neither  you  nor  Ciarvoe  were  in  Canada  with  Weichmann  ? 

A.  Yes,  Ciarvoe  was.     He  came  there  after  we  were  there. 

Q.  Were  you  and  Ciarvoe  with  Weichmaun  at  any  time  ? 

A.  No.     I  was  with  Weichmann  and  Bigley  at  one  tiuie. 

Q.  Did  not  Weichmann  go  to  Quebec  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Is  not  that  hearsay. 

WiTN  ESS.  I  know  he  went ;  that  is,  I  know  they  left  to  go  to  Quebec.  I  went 
to  Three  Rivers  with  a  detective  from  Montreal. 

Q.  You  were  examined  before,  were  you  not  ? 

A.  At  the  penitentiary  I  was. 

Q.  At  the  trial  of  the  conspirators  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Let  me  read  to  you  from  a  report  of  that  trial :  "  The  last  time  I  saw  hira, 
[referring  to  Sun-att]  was  on  the  night  of  the  third  of  April,  the  day  on  which 
the  news  of  the  fall  of  Richmond  was  received."     You  said  that  1 

A.  I  did,  sir. 

Q.  "He  knocked  at  the  door  of  my  room  at  about  ten  o'clock,  after  I  was  in 
bed,  and  wished  me  to  exchange  some  gold  for  greenbacks."     Did  you  say  that  1 

A.  The  way  of  it  was  this  :  they  would  not  allow  me  to  make  my  statement 
there  on  that  trial. 

Q.  I  did  not  ask  you  about  that.  I  ask  you  whether  you  have  said  what  I 
have  read  ? 

A.  As  I  was  saying  to  you 

Q.  You  must  stop  and  answer  my  question.  My  question  simply  is,  did  you 
say  this,  as  I  have  read  it,  on  the  trial  ? 

A.  Yes ;  but  I  want  to  explain  it  in  this  way. 

Q.  You  said  what  I  have  read,  did  you  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  but  I  want  to  explain. 

Q.  Well,  now  what  do  you  want  to  say  ? 

A.  I  want  to  put  in  this  :  they  would  not  allow  me  to  make  my  statement. 
"^J^hey  put  questions  there,  whatever  they  chose  to  ask.  Surratt  came  to  my 
room  door  and  wanted  to  see  me.  I  put  my  pants  on,  and  went  into  the  room 
where  Mr.  W«-ichmann  was.  He  had  his  shirt  off,  and  was  undressed.  Sur- 
ratt said  to  me  "Have  you  any  money  with  you."  1  said  "I  have.  How 
much  do  you  want?"  He  said  "I  want  fifty  dollars."  I  said  you  can  have  it. 
1  went  to  my  room  and  got  it,  and  gave  him  fifty  dollars,  and  asked  him  if 
tlTat  was  enough.  He  said  he  would  like  to  get  ten  dollars  more.  I  got  ten 
dollars  and  gave  it  to  him  ;  and  just  as  I  was  going  out  in  the  passage  he 
handed  me  two  twenty-dollar  gold  pieces,  and  insisted  on  my  taking  it.  I  did 
not  want  it. 

Q.  Is  that  all  you  want  to  say  1 

A.  That  is  all  just  now. 

Q.  Now,  is  this  what  you  said  down  at  the  arsenal :  "I  gave  him  sixty  dol- 
lars in  paper  for  forty  dollars  in  gold.  He  said  he  wanted  to  go  to  New  York, 
and  that  he  could  not  get  it  exchanged  in  time  to  leave  by  the  early  train  in 
the  morning  ?" 

A.  Yes,  I  said  that. 
Q.  Is  that  true  1 
A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  "I  never  knew  anything  ofMrs.Surratt's  defective  eye-sight,  while  I  lived 
with  her  " 

Mr.  Bradley.  We  have  not  asked  the  witness  anything  about  Mrs.  Surratt's 
defective  eje-sight. 

Mr.  PiBRREPONT.  Very  well.     I  do  not  care  to  press  it. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURRATT.  685 

Mr.  Bradley.  Why  did  you  a?k  it  then? 

Mr.  PiKRRKPONT.  I  asked  him  whether  he  said  that  in  the  other  trial.  I 
read  again  from  that  trial:  "While  there  I  eaw  Atzerodt  several  times,  though 
I  did  not  know  him  by  that  name.  He  seemed  to  be  with  John  Surratt  most 
of  the  time."    Did  you  say  that  on  that  trial  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  it  ti-ue  1 

A.  It  was  true.     I  sav/  Weichmann  with  the  whole  party. 

Q.  "I  also  saw  Payne  there  at  breakfast.  The  name  by  which  I  knew  him 
was  Wood.  John  Wilkes  liooth,  I  have  seen  frequently.  I  have  seen  him  in 
the  parlor  with  Mrs.  Surratt  and  the  young  ladies."     Did  you  say  that  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Was  that  true  1 

A.  Yes,  it  was  true. 

Q,.  In  your  direct  examination,  you  told  us  about  a  "mission"  that  you  said 
you  had  up  at  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  "Mission"  Avas  the  word 
you  used,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  using  any  such  word. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  or  not  about  going  to  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
on  a  certain  Saturday  night? 

A.  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  use  the  word  "mission"  in  that  connection  ?  And  did  you  say 
you  faili'd  in  it  ? 

A.  We  failed  to  get  an  engine  for  a  special  train  to  go  to  Baltimore. 

Q.  Was  that  what  you  alluded  to  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was. 

Q.  What  were  you  going  to  Baltimore  for  ? 

A.  It  was  at  the  suggestion  of  McDevitt. 

Q.  What  were  you  going  to  Baltimore  for? 

A.  McDevitt  was  going  there,  thinking  that  possibly  Atzerodt  and  other 
parties  would  be  in  Baltimore. 

Q.  What  parties  ? 

A.  Atzerodt  and  parties. 

Same  question  repeated  three  times,  with  same  answer. 

Question  again  repeated. 

A.  Booth  and  Payne. 

Q.  Anybody  else  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  When  you  were  so  reluctant  in  naming  what  parties,  did  you  mean  Sur- 
ratt.    The  parties  in  Baltimore  did  not  comprehend  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  do  not  understand  tliat. 

Mr.  PlERRKPuiVT.  I  presume  that  I  shall  hardly  be  able  to  put  it  in  language 
that  you  will  be  able  to  understand. 

Witness.  If  you  will  put  it  in  dift'erent  language  perhaps  I  may  understand  it. 

Q.  If  you  do  not  understand  that,  I  do  not  think  I  will  be  able  to  make  my- 
self understood.     Will  you  tell  us  when  you  got  back  from  Canada? 

A.  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  month  ? 

A.  I  have  no  recollection  of  the  day  of  the  month.  It  was  about  eight  or 
ten  days  after  the  assassination.  It  was  on  Saturday  morning.  I  recollect 
distinctly. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  what  day  of  the  month  ? 

A.  I  have  just  told  you,  Saturday  morning. 

Q.  How  many  days  after  you  left  here? 

A.  It  was  about  ten  days — eight  or  ten. 

Q.  You  speak  of  being  in  prison,  what  were  you  in  prison  for  ? 


686  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  That  is  more  than  I  am  able  to  say;  Secretary  Stanton  will  be  able  to 
answer  you  that  better  than  I  can. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  ? 

A   No. 

Q.  When  you  went  to  the  depot  that  morning  from  Burlington,  the  others 
went  along  with  you? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  None  of  them  ? 

A.  None  of  them. 

Q.  You  went  alone  ] 

A.  I  went  alone. 

Q    You  went  alone  that  morning  ? 

A.  I  did,  sir ;   positively. 

Q.   Who  at  the  hotel  with  you  staid  behind  ? 

Witness.  What  hotel  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPOAT.  The  hotel  at  Burlington. 

AViT.NESS.   Staid  back? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  Yes;  who  staid  back  when  you  went  alone  ? 

Witness.  I  do  not  think  you  have  got  the  right  point. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT.  May  be  not. 

Witness.  I  do  not  think  you  have.  I  think  your  informer  has  not  given 
you  the  right  point.     I  can  put  you  right. 

Mr.  Pierrkpont.  Just  wait  a  moment;  you  will  have  to  put  yourself  right. 
Now  you  will  have  to  answer  my  questions. 

Witness.  Very  well;  you  must  put  your  questions  to  me. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  appealed  to  the  court  to  direct  the  witness  to  answer  questions. 
He  wished  to  know  whether  the  witness  could  be  allowed  to  tell  him  he  had  got 
the  wrong  point,  and  that  his  informer  had  got  the  wrong  point. 

The  Court  directed  the  witness  to  answer  questions  as  they  wei*e  put,  and 
to  make  whatever  explanation  he  fouud  necessaiy  afterwards. 

Mr.  Bradley. remarked  that  the  other  day  the  court  reproved  the  counsel 
for  the  manner  in  which  they  cross-examined  witnesses.  He  thought  no  witness 
had  been  cross-examined  in  a  way  more  to  provoke  him  than  this. 

The  Court  said  he  could  not  see  anything  calling  on  hira  to  reprove  counsel. 
The  witness  must  answer  the  questions  put  to  him. 

Q.  Now,  will  you  tell  me  when  you  left  the  hotel  in  Burlington,  who  you 
left  behind  of  your  party  1 

A.  I  did  not  leave  anybody  behind. 

Q.  Did  they  all  go  with  you  1 

A.  No ;  they  did  not. 

Q.  Did  anybody  go  with  you? 

A.  One. 

Q.  Who? 

A.  I  will  not  be  positive  whether  it  was  Bigley  or  McDevitt.  One  went  with 
me,  and  one  went  with  Weichmann.     They  separated. 

Q    Did  not  Bigley  go  with  you  ? 

A.  1  think  it  was  Bigley. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  how  many  pockets  your  overcoat  had  in  it. 

A.  Six. 

Q.  In  which  pocket  was  the  tobacco  and  the  pocket  handerchief  ? 

A.  The  right-hand  outside  pocket. 

Q.  When  you  picked  up  the  handkerchief  were  you  aware  that  it  had  a 
name  on  it  ? 

A.  I  was.  Clarvoe  said  to  me,  "  You  keep  that  handkerchief^  you  will  want 
to  use  it."     He  made  a  remark  something  of  that  kind. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  6^87 

Q.  You  have  been  asked  if  you  would  recognize  that  handkerchief  again. 
Please  look  at  that,  (handkerchief  heretofore  placed  in  evidence  exhibited)  and 
say  if  you  think  that  is  the  same. 

A.  That  is  the  handkerchief,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  state  to  the  jury  by  what  you  identify  that  as  the  handkerchi'^f ; 
state  whether  you  carried  it  in  your  pocket  and  made  some  use  of  it. 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  used  it  the  same  as  my  own  handkerchief  until  it  became 
very  dirty. 

Q.  You  observed  that  handkerchief.  Now,  is  the  number  where  you  sup- 
posed it  to  be  or  not  ? 

A.   It  is  under  the  line. 

Q.  Not  at  the  end  of  the  line,  as  you  supposed  ? 

A.  No. 

Q.  You  were  asked  if  you  told  Weichmann  that  you  left  it  under  your  pillow 
at  the  hotel.  You  say  you  did  not  tell  him  so  Did  you  at  any  time  state  to 
Weichmann  that  you  had  lost  that  handkerchief? 

A.  I  never  stated  to  him  anything  about  it.  The  only  statement  I  made  was 
in  Montreal.     ^IcDevitt  and  Ciarvoe  told  me 

Mr.  PiEKRBPONT.  You  need  not  state  what  they  said. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Do  not  state  what  they  said.  I  ask  you  if  you  communi- 
cated to  any  one  the  loss  of  that  handkerchief;  and  if  so,  when  it  was,  and 
where  ? 

A.  I  did  not  communicate  it  to  anybody  until  they  told  me  it  was  found.  A 
party  told  me  it  had  been  found,  and  then  I  said  I  had  lost  it. 

Q.  That  was  after  you  reached  Montreal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  after  we  came  back  from  Three  Rivers. 

Q.  The  counsel  read  to  you  from  your  examination  betbre  the  military  com- 
mission as  to  whether  you  had  ever  seen  Payne  or  not.  Did  you  ever  know 
him  by  any  other  name  than  AVood  ? 

A.  No,  sit. 

Q.  While  you  were  in  the  house  you  met  him  there  ? 

A.  At  breakfast. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  about  the  house  at  any  other  time  than  at  breakfast  ? 

A.  No,  sir, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  about  what  period  of  time  it  was — how  long  after  you 
went  to  board  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  It  may  have  been  two  ortliree  weeks.     I  do  not  recollect  the  time. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  time  you  ever  saw  him  at  that  house  ? 

A.  The  only  t  me. 

Q.  You  never  knew  him  by  any  other  name  than  Wood  ? 

A.  I  did  not.     It  was  Weichmann  who  introduced  me. 

Q.  And  he  introduced  you  as  Wood  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  Mr.  Pierrrpu.\t  : 

Q.  AVhere  ^id  you  first  mention  the  loss  of  that  handkerchief  to  anybody  ? 

A.  In  Montreal. 

q.  What  day  ? 

A.  I  cannot  locate  the  day. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  day  of  the  week  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  day  of  the  month  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  person  to  whom  you  told  it  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Q.  Who? 


688  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  McDevitt. 

Q.  Please  look  at  the  handkerchief  and  see  if  the  number  is  on  the  same  line 
with  the  name. 

A.  I  do  not  think  it  is.     I  can  see  from  this  distance. 

Q.  Is  this  the  handkerchief  that  you  lost  ? 

A.  That  is  asking  too  much  of  me. 

Q.  A  little  too  much,  I  suppose. 

A.  I  cannot  say  positively  that  I  had  this  handkerchief  there ;  but  I  think 
this  is  the  one. 

John  A.  W.  Clarvoe,  detective,  metropolitan  police,  swoi-n  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  to  the  court  and  jury  whether  you  were  at  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt 
on  the  night  of  the  14th  of  April ;  and  if  so,  at  what  time  you  got  there,  and 
who  went  with  you. 

A.  1  should  judge  at  about  half-past  two  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  14th  of 
April,  in  company  with  my  partner,  Lieutenant  Skippon,  detective  Donaldson, 
and  an  officer  by  the  name  of  Maxwell,  and  several  others  I  do  not  now  recol- 
lect; and  we  went  to  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  on  H  street. 

Q.  Was  that  in  response  to  information  you  had  received,  and  for  what  pur- 
pose did  you  go  1 

A.  I  went  for  the  purpose  of  capturing  Booth,  and  also  to  arrest  John  H. 
Surratt. 

Examination  of  witness  suspended  at  this  point. 

, Eliza  Holahan,  wife  of  John  T.  Holahan,  sworn  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  whether  you  boarded  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  in  the  year  1865. 

A.  I  did,  from  the  7th  of  February  until  the  17th  of  April. 

Q.  During  that  time  did  you  mingle  socially  in  the  family  of  Mrs.  Surratt, 
or  keep  yourself  exclusive  ? 

A.  I  mingled  Avith  them  freely,  met  them  at  any  time  and  at  all  times 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  to  have  seen  there  at  any  time  Mr.  Weichmann,  and 
whether  he  was  a  boarder  or  not  ? 

A.  He  was  a  boarder  in  the  house  while  I  was.  He  was  there  when  I  first 
went  there  to  board. 

Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  see  him  and  a  man  by  the  name  of  Atzerodt  ? 

A.  I  saw  a  person  who  came  to  the  house.  I  did  not  know  him  by  that 
name.     They  called  him  Port  Tobacco.     His  familiar  name  was  Port  Tobacco. 

Q.  State  whether  you  observed  any  intimacy  between  him  and  Mr.  Weich- 
mann 

A.  I  saw  him  ofteuer  with  Mr.  Weichmann  than  with  any  member  of  the 
household. 

Q.  Bad  you  ever  seen  them  go  from  the  house  or  come  to  the  house  together  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  on  two  occasions  I  saw  them  go  and  come. 

Q.  Did  you  know  anything  of  Atzerodt  wearing  Weichmann's  clothes  at  any 
time  ? 

A.  1  remember  once  seeing  Atzerodt  leave  the  house  with  Weichmann's  cloak 
and  hat  on — a  tall  black  hat  and  military  cloak. 

Q.  During  that  time  did  you  ever  see  a  man  by  the  name  of  Herold  there  1 

A.  Never. 

Q.  Did  you  see  John  Wilkes  Booth  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  saw  him  there  two  or  three  times. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  man  there  by  the  name  of  Payne  or  Wood  1 


I 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  689 

A.  I  met  a  man  calling  liimself  Wood  ;  I  never  knew  him  by  the  name  of 
Payne.     I  never  heard  of  him  by  that  name  until  after  the  assassination. 

Q.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  time  you  were  there  where  did  you  have  your 
washing  done  1 

A.  In  the  latter  part  of  my  stay  in  the  house  we  had  it  done  by  Mrs.  Surratt's 
washerwoman. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  put  out  your  clothes  to  wash? 

A.  On  Monday  morning,  generally,  and  they  were  delivered  to  us  on  Wednes- 
day. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  on  the  day  after  the  assassination  of  the  President 
whether  there  was  any  washing  done  in  the  house  that  day,  or  the  day  before  ? 

A.  On  the  day  after  the  assassination  I  think  there  was  none  done.  I  am 
sure  that  I  had  no  washing  done  after  the  assassination,  and  that  I  put  out  no 
clothes  to  wash  until  the  Monday  following. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  home? 

A.  I  went  home  on  Sunday  at  2  o'clock  and  returned  on  Monday  and  re- 
mained until  after  12  or  1  o'clock.  That  morning  I  put  out  my  clothes  to 
wash. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  on  Sunday  or  ]\[onday  your  clean  clothes  you 
had  received  from  the  wash  were  put  away,  or  whether  they  were  left  lying  on 
the  bed  ? 

A.  My  clean  clothes  were  put  away. 

Q.  You  were  at  home  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  on  the  3d  of  April,  the  day  of  the 
news  of  the  surrender  of  Richmond  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  John  Surratt  that  night  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him ;  I  heard  his  voice.  He  knocked  at  our  door  and  asked 
Mr.  Holahan  to  come  to  the  door. 

Q.  Had  he  not  been  absent  some  days  before  1 

A.  He  had  ;  some  six  or  eight  days,  I  believe.  It  might  have  been  longer ; 
I  think  it  was. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  when  he  left  there  prior  to  the  3d  of  April  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  went  with  him  and  how  did  he  go  ? 

Witness.  On  his  visit  to  Richmond,  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes;  at  that  time. 

A.  I  think  he  left  in  company  with  his  mother  and  another  lady,  in  a  car- 
riage, with  a  white  and  dark  horse. 

Q.  A  buggy  and  two  horses  1 

A.  Yes,  si  I  ;  two  horses  and  carriage. 

Q.   Were  you  at  home  on  the  ]4th  of  April  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  AVere  you  at  home  when  Mrs.  Surratt  arrived  that  afternoon  ? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Now  please  to  state  to  the  court  and  jury  what  occurred  immediately  after 
Mrs.  Surratt's  arrival  on  Friday  afternoon  from  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  Mrs.  Surratt  for  some  time  after  she  returned  ;  some  ten  or 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes.  Then  1  called  her  and  asked  her  if  she  was  ready  to 
go  out.  She  had  promised  that  morning  to  go  to  church  that  night.  She  said 
she  was,  and  took  her  bonnet  and  shawl  and  put  them  on,  and  we  went  as  far 
as  Dr.  Evans's  house,  two  doors  above  Mrs.  Surratt's.  The  adjoining  house  was 
Mr.  Sweeney's.  I  remarked  that  it  was  a  heavy,  disagreeable  night,  and  suggest- 
ed that  we  did  not  go.  She  said  "  well,"  and  we  returned  togcrther  back  to  the 
porch  and  staid  some  five  or  ten  minutes,  when  I  went  to  my  room  and  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt went  to  the  parlor.     I  did  not  see  her  after  that. 


690  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  After  you  went  to  your  room  and  Mrs.  Surratt  went  to  the  parlor,  you  did 
not  see  her  again  till  when  ? 

A.  Until  the  next  morning,  ahout  7  or  half-past  7  o'clock  ;  I  am  not  sure 
about  the  hour.     It  was  some  time  before  we  had  breakfast. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  see  her  during  the  night  when  the  officers  were  there 
making  their  search  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  her  until  the  next  morning, 

Q.  At  breakfast,  do  you  remember  what  time  Miss  Anna  Surratt  came  in  ? 

A.  She  came  in  late;  when  we  were  nearly  through.  She  went  to  bed  the 
evening  before — or  left  the  parloi' — the  first  one,  and  she  did  not  enter  the 
breakfast  room  until  we  were  nearly  through  breakfast. 

Q.  Was  Weichmann  at  breakfast  ? 

A.  He  was. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Weichmann,  while  at  breakfast,  say  to  Mrs.  Surratt  and  to 
Mr.  Holahan,  at  the  table,  that  he  had  his  suspicions  about  tins  business  and 
was  going  to  the  government  and  state  his  suspicions  about  it;  state  who  he 
had  ever  seen  in  Booth's  company,  and  do  all  he  could  to  bring  these  parties  to 
justice  ? 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  asked  whether  that  was  a  proper  question 

Mr.  Bradley  replied  that  it  was ;  that  the  witness  Weichmann  stated  that 
this  conversation  took  place  in  the  presence  of  Mrs.  Holahan,  Mr.  Holahan,  Miss 
Jenkins,  and  Miss  Dean,  at  breakfast,  and  read  from  the  report  of  Weichmann's 
testimony,  in  which  lie  stated  that  this  conversation  was  in  the  presence  of  Mrs. 
Holahan,  at  the  breakfast  table. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  he  did  not  object  to  the  question. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  never  heard  any  such  expression  made  use  of. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  understood  that  under  the  ruling  of  the  court  he  was  not 
permitted  to  inquire  whether  any  such  remark  as  was  imputed  to  Anna  Surratt 
was  made 

The  Court  replied,  he  was  not. 

Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  you  did  not  go  into  the  parlor  after  you  returned 
from  your  walk  with  Mrs.  Surratt  that  night.  Now  can  you  state  with  any 
confidence  at  what  time  in  the  evening  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  went  out  ? 

A.  I  should  suppose  it  was  about  9  o'clock,  or  it  might  have  been  later  than 
9  ;  probably  about  a  quarter  past  9. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  anything  in  her  manner  to  excite  your  surpi'ise  at  all  or 
to  attract  your  attention  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not ;  she  seemed  as  calm  as  ever  I  saw  her  in  my  life. 

Q.  You  observed  no  nervousness  ;  hurried,  excited  manner  ? 

A.  None  at  all. 

Q.  You  say  you  went  out  that  evening  intending  to  go  to  church  ;  state 
whether  you  had  ever  been  to  church  with  her  before,  and  what  her  habit  was  as 
to  going  to  church 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont,  on  the  ground  that  general  habits 
could  not  be  shown. 

Ml-.  Bradley  said  he  offered  the  evidence  to  prove  the  general  good  charac- 
ter of  Mrs.  Surratt. 

The  Court  said  that  the  matter  of  people  going  to  church  he  did  not  think 
proved  anything  about  character,  so  far  as  his  experience  went. 

Mr.  Bradley  said,  then  he  would  put  the  question  in  this  way  : 

Q.  While  you  lived  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  had  you  opportunities  of  learning  her 
character  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  as  immaterial ;  Mrs.  Surratt  was  not 
on  trial.  Objection  sustained,  and  exception  to  ruling  reserved  by  counsel  for 
the  defence.) 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  691 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  you  know  anything  of  Mrs.  Surratt  having  a  defec- 
tive eyesight  ? 

A.  1  do  not  think  her  eyesight  was  very  good.  I  have  often  been  called  to 
thread  needles  for  her  and  to  read  notes.  I  never  saw  her  read  or  sew  after 
daylight. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  At  what  time  did  church  begin  on  this  Friday  night  in  April  ? 

A.  About  half  past  7. 

Q.  You  state  tliat  ]\Irs.  Surratt  and  yourself  started  out  to  go  to  church  at  9 
o'clock  or  a  quarter  after  ;  iiow  many  houses  did  you  pass  towards  the  church 
before  you  turned  back  1 

A.  Two. 

Q.  And  when  you  came  back  you  went  to  your  room  ? 

A.  I  staid  in  the  door-way  after,  a  few  minutes  ;  then  I  went  to  my  room  and 
Mrs.  Surratt  went  to  the  parlor. 

Q.  And  you  saw  her  no  more  until  the  next  morning  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  about  your  husband  going  to  the  theatre  a  while  before  that  ? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Ilolahan  was  down  town  one  night,  and  went  to  the  theatre. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  did  not  go  with  him  ] 

A.  I  did  not. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  know  about  it  of  your  own  knowledge  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  spoke  of  a  lady  who  went  away  with  Mrs.  Surratt ;  who  was  that 
lady? 

A.  I  do  not  know  her  name. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  her  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  her  since  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  who  she  was  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  on  the  ground  that  the  court  had  already 
ruled  that  what  Mrs.  Surratt  said  could  not  be  given  in  evidence.  Objection  sus- 
tained.) 

A.  I  said  that  Mr.  Snrratt  left  home  on  the  3d  of  April,  and  that  he  was 
accompanied  by  his  mother  and  a  lady  ;  that  they  went  in  a  two-horse  carriage. 

Q.  And  you  cannot  tell  me  who  the  lady  was  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  tell  you  who  she  was  1 

(Question  again  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley,  and  objection  sustained.) 

Q.  You  say  Surratt  returned  on  the  3d  of  April ;  was  this  six  days  before 
that? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  tell  us  when  you  put  your  clothes  in  the  wash  at  the  time  you  have 
been  asked  about. 

A.  We  put  our  clothes  in  the  wash  on  Monday. 

Q.  This  murder  of  the  President  having  occurred  on  Friday  night,  did  you  put 
out  your  clothes  on  the  next  Monday  ? 

A.  I  did.  I  left  Mrs.  Surratt's  on  Sunday,  and  returned  next  morning  and 
put  them  out  to  wash. 

Q.  Do  you  know  when  they  came  out  of  the  wash  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  anything  further  about  them.  I  never  saw  them  again  for 
three  or  four  weeks. 


692  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  When  you  left,  the  clothea  that  had  been  washed,  you  say,  had  been  put 
away  1 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  about  it.  We  found  them  some  up  stairs  and 
some  down  stairs. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  the  clothes  you  put  in  the  wash  on  that  Monday,  again  ? 

A.  Never  until  I  was  allowed  permission  to  go  and  get  my  clothes  from  Mrs. 
Surratt's  house. 

Q.  How  long  afterwards  ? 

A.   I  presume  some  fourteen  days.     It  may  have  been  more. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  on  the  conspiracy  trial  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  that  trial  let  me  call  your  attention  to  what  you  are  reported  as  having 
said.  Did  you  state  this  :  "  I  boarded  with  Mrs.  Surratt  from  the  seventh  of 
February  until  two  days  after  the  assassination.  I  know  the  prisoner  at  the  bar, 
who  called  himself  Wood.  [Payne.]  I  saw  him  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  in  February, 
and  the  second  time  1  think  about  the  middle  of  March.  He  was  introduced  to 
me  as  ]\[r.  Wood,  but  I  never  exchanged  a  word  with  him  on  either  visit.  I 
asked  Miss  Anna  Surratt  who  he  was,  and  she  said  he  was  a  Mr.  Wood,  a  Bap- 
tist minister.  I  said  I  did  not  think  he  would  convert  many  souls.  He  did 
not  look  as  if  he  would." 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  I  read  further :  "  I  have  seen  the  prisoner  Atzerodt  at  Mrs.  Surratt's, 
though  I  never  heard  of  him  by  that  name.  He  called  himself  and  the  young 
ladies  called  him  Port  Tobacco.  I  saw  him  come  in  at  times  and  he  dined  there 
once  or  twice."     Did  you  state  that  l 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Further  on  :  "I  have  seen  John  Wilkes  Booth  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  three  or 
four  times.  When  he  called  he  spent  most  of  his  time  in  company  with  Mrs. 
Surratt,  I  believe.  He  would  ask  for  Mr.  John  Surratt,  as  I  understood."  Did 
you  state  that  before  the  military  commission  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  as  not  in  response  to  direct  examination.) 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  in.sisted  on  the  question,  and  said  he  had  a  right  to  ask 
her  whether  this  was  what  she  said  on  the  former  trial. 

(Objection  overruled.) 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  about  that. 

Q.  State  what  church  you  started  to  attend  that  night. 

A.   Saint  Patrick's  church. 

Q.  How  far  was  that  from  the  house  1 
ik.  I  suppose  about  five  squares. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  How  long  did  the  services  in  that  church  continue  on  Good  Friday  night? 
A.  Generally  until  ten  o'clock  or  after.     The  services  are  prolonged  on  Good 
Friday  night. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  I  ask  you  whether  on  this  same  trial  to  which  the  gentleman  has  referred 
you  did  not  testify  as  follows,  in  speaking  of  Atzerodt :  "  I  saw  him  come  in  at 
times,  and  he  dined  there  once  or  twice.  I  heard  Mrs.  Surratt  say  she  objected 
to  Mr.  At»n-odt ;  she  did  not  like  him — and  that  she  would  rather  he  did  not 
come  there  to  board." 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  was  my  statement. 

Eliza  Hawkins,  (colored,)  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 
Q.  Were  you  ever  called  Rachel  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  that  was  my  name.  They  called  me  Eliza  for  short ;  it  has 
beeu  so  long  since  they  called  me  Rachel  that  I  am  not  called  that  at  all  now. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  693 

Q.  Do  you  know  Susan  Ann  Jackson,  who  lived  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  her  name  then  ? 

A.  Susan  Ann  Mahony. 

Q.  But  now  it  is  Jackson  1 

A.  Yes ;  slie  was  not  married  when  I  saw  her.  Her  name  then  was  Susan 
Mahony. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  when  the  President  was  murdered  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  Good  Friday  night. 

Q.  How  long  after  that  was  it  before  you  saw  Susan  Mahony  1 

A.  I  saw  her  Tuesday  morning.  Mrs.  Surratt  was  taken  to  prison  on  Monday 
night.     1  saw  her  on  Tuesday  morning. 

Q.  Where  were  you  living  at  that  time  ? 

A.  I  was  living  with  Mr.  John  Lloyd,  at  Surrattsville,  and  I  came  to  see  my 
children  and  Mr.  Wildman  and  his  family.  I  used  to  belong  to  him.  I  came 
up  on  Good  Friday  to  take  my  Easter  holiday.     I  always  do  it. 

Q.  When  you  saw  Susan,  did  yon  have  any  talk  with  her  about  John  Surratt? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  she  tell  you  about  John  Surratt  ? 

(Question  objected  toby  Mr.  Pierrepont.  He  did  not  understand  that  when 
Susan  Ann  .lackson  was  cross-examined  that  Eliza  Hawkins  and  Rachel  Seavers 
were  the  same  person.) 

Tlie  Court  said  he  understood  distinctly  that  they  referred  to  the  same  per- 
son, and  that  he  thought  the  witness  so  understood. 

A.  She  was  talking  about  her  having  such  bad  luck  in  losing  homes  ;  that 
she  was  afraid  she  would  not  get  her  money.  She  said  she  had  been  living  at 
Mrs.  Surratt's  two  weeks,  but  that  she  thought  she  might  get  her  pay.  I  said 
Mrs.  Surratt  would  pay  her  if  it  took  the  last  cent  she  had.  She  said  the  night 
the  President  was  killed  they  came  there  and  searched  the  house,  and  that  she 
heard  talk  al'out  Mr.  Surratt;  that  when  she  first  came  there  Mr.  Surratt  was 
there,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  asked  her  if  he  did  not  look  very  much  like  her  daughter. 
She  said  she  had  not  seen  him  since,  and  that  was  about  two  weeks  before  ;  that 
she  went  in  where  he  was,  to  take  in  a  pot  of  tea.  Tha*.  is  before  God  what  she 
told  me.     I  would  not  say  it  if  it  was  not  true. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrki'oivt  : 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  leave  Mr.  Lloyd's  house  ? 

A.  After  dinner. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mrs.  Surratt  1 

A.  I  lived  with  her  six  years. 

Q.  Were  yon  a  slave  at  the  time? 

A,  Yes,  1  was  always  a  slave. 

Q.  Were  you  the  slave  of  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  T  was  hired  to  Mrs.  Surratt.     Mr.  Wildman,  my  master,  hired  me. 

Q.  And  you  came  up  to  see  her  that  night? 

A.  I  came  up  to  see  her,  to  see  my  children,  and  to  see  Mr.  Wildman's  family. 

Q.  You  went  to  her  house  ? 

A.  I  did  not  go  that  night ;  I  went  to  Mr.  Wildman's.  I  went  to  her  house 
Tuesday  morning. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  time  you  went  ? 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  Susan? 

A.  I  saw  her  that  morning  when  I  went  there.  I  staid  there  all  day.  My 
little  child  was  there,  and  after  I  found  the  soldiers  Avere  there  I  wanted  to  take 
her  away.  1  staid  until  S  o'clock,  and  tlien  with  Susan  Jackson  and  the  col- 
ored mail,  whom  1  suppose  she  married,  I  went  down  to  the  provost  marshal's. 


694  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H     SUREATT. 

Q.  Was  the  colored  man  she  married  there  when  you  came  there  on  Tuesday? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  he  came  there  in  the  day.  The  soldiers  said  that  anybody  who 
came  in  the  house  could  not  go  out.  Miss  Anna  Ward  came  there,  and  another 
young  lady  with  her;   and  they  had  to  stay. 

Q.  Did  the  soldiers  come  in  while  you  were  there  ? 

A.  They  were  there  when  I  went  there. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  morning  ? 

A.  After  breakfast.  The  soldiers  were  there  then,  and  they  were  passing  in 
and  out  all  day. 

Q.  Did  they  say  anything  to  you  about  your  staying  there. 

A.  They  told  me  I  had  to  stay.  I  wanted  to  go  away,  but  they  would  not 
let  me.     I  staid  until  eight  o'clock  that  night. 

Q.  How  did  you  get  away  1 

A.  They  carried  me  down  to  the  provost  marshal's. 

Q.  And  then  they  let  you  oflf  ?     Who  carried  you  there  ? 

A.  They  were  two  soldiers.     I  do  not  know  who  they  were. 

Q.  Susan  told  you  that  Mrs.  Surratt  said  John  looked  like  Anna  ? 

A.  She  said  he  looked  very  much  like  Anna. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Ann  i  ? 

A.  Certainly,  I  knew  Miss  Anna  Surratt.  I  had  been  living  in  the  house 
six  years. 

Q.  You  knew  them  all  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  were  attached  to  them  1 

A.  Very  much  attached  to  them.  I  would  have  been  with  them  till  this  day 
if  I  could. 

Q.  You  are  very  much  attached  to  them  to  this  day  ? 

A.   Yes,  sir,  very  much  attached  to  them. 

Q.  Your  feelings  are  strongly  interested  in  them  1 

A.  Oh,  yes,  sir ;  they  treated  me  right ;  I  certainly  had  a  right  to  be  so. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  But  your  feelings  are  not  strong  enough  to  make  you  tell  a  lie  about  it  1 

A.  No,  sir;  before  God,  I  want  to  tell  the  truth. 

Q.  You  say  you  lived  with  Mrs.  Surratt  for  six  years  down  at  Surrattsville, 
now  I  want  you  to  tell  me  how  Mrs.  Surratt  behaved  when  the  Union  soldiers 
came  there. 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  as  not  relevant.  Mr.  Bradley  said  his 
offer  of  proof  was  that  Mrs  Surratt  fed  and  sustained  the  Union  soldiers  and 
furnished  them  with  everything  she  had  when  at  her  house.  Objection  sus- 
tained.    Exception  to  the  ruling  reserved  by  counsel  for  the  defence.) 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  when  you  first  told  anybody  about  this  matter? 

Witness.  About  Susan  Ana  Jackson  and  what  she  told  me  1 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  Yes. 

A.  I  went  on  the  Island  and  told  my  young  mistress  about  it  as  soon  as  I 
got  there. 

Q.  When  w^as  that? 

A.  It  was  the  very  night  I  got  there.  I  do  not  know  what  day  of  the  month 
it  was. 

Q.  Who  was  young  mistress  1 

A.  She  married  Henry  Quinn. 

Q.  Who  have  you  told  since  this  trial  commenced  about  it? 

A.  I  heard  them  read  about  it  in  the  papers  what  Susan  said,  and  told  them 
Susan  certainly  could  not  have  said  that ;  she  could  not  have  sworn  to  such  a 
thing  as  that. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT.  695 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  to  several  people  ? 

A.  I  said  it  to  every  one  mIio  read  the  papers  to  me. 

Q.  Wlio  did  you  say  it  to  tirst? 

A.  The  first  one  I  said  it  to  was  the  man  who  lived  with  Mr.  Barry.  His 
name  is  Richardson.     He  road  the  paper  to  me. 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  Susan  ? 

A.  I  saw  Susan  last  fall.     She  was  going  down  to  see  her  mother. 

Q.  Are  you  and  Susan  good  friends  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  good  friends. 

Q.  You  never  had  any  quarrel  ? 

A.  No,  indeed.    We  never  had  any  words.    I  never  had  any  difference  with  her. 

Q.  Are  you  married  ] 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  is  your  husband's  name  1 

A.  His  name  was  Tom  Seavers. 

Q.  When  did  he  die  ? 

A.  He  is  not  dead  yet.  When  the  colored  people  were  going  away  he  went 
away  too.  He  was  with  a  man  who  did  better  for  him  than  he  does  now  for 
himself. 

Q.  But  he  did  not  go  back  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  he  staid  in  the  city.  He  was  so  lazy  and  good  for  nothing  I 
made  up  my  mind  I  would  not  follow  him.  I  had  children  to  work  for,  and  I 
thought  I  woidd  rather  stay  there  and  work  for  my  children  than  to  come  here 
and  snffer  with  liitn. 

Q.  Now  tell  us,  please,  where  you  saw  Susan  Jackson. 

A  She  came  down  to  Surrattsville  on  her  way  to  see  her  mother — she  and 
her  husband.  I  Avas  down  there  fixing  Mr.  Robey's  daughter  off  to  get  mar- 
ried— fixing  up  some  clothes.  When  they  got  to  T.  B.  her  horse  gave  out,  and 
they  wanted  to  stop  there  all  night.  Mrs.  Robey  was  away.  I  told  her  that 
if  Mr.  Robey  said  so  she  could  stay,  but  that  otherwise  she  could  not  sleep  in 
that  house  tliat  niglit.  When  Mr.  Robey  came  out  he  told  them  they  could 
rest  their  horses  and  go  on  ;  that  she  could  not  stay  there  that  night. 

Q.  W^hat  was  the  reason  she  could  not  stay  there  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Robey  was  away  from  the  house,  and  left  the  house  in  my  care,  and 
I  could  not  take  any  stranger  in  to  lodge  in  the  house. 

Q.  She  was  a  stranger  to  you,  then  ? 

A.  I  had  seen  her.      She  was  no  intimate  friend. 

Q.  You  did  not  like  last  fall  to  take  a  stranger  into  the  house  ? 

A.  I  would  not  take  her  into  Mrs.  Robey's  house  when  she  was  away.  If 
it  had  been  my  mother  I  would  not  have  done  it. 

Q.  Was  this  a  tavern  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Ned  Robey  kept  it. 

Q.  They  did  not  take  strangers  in  there  did  they  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir,  they  took  strangers  in. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  You  mean  strangers  to  Mrs.  Robey  ? 
A.  Yes ;  Mrs   Robey  was  not  there. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  They  took  in  strangers  who  wanted  to  lodge  there  and  paid  for  their  lodg- 
ing, did  they  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  they  did.     They  did  not  take  in  anybody  except  white  people 
They  had  no  arrangements  for  taking  in  colored  people. 

By  Mr.  PiERREPOiVT : 
Q.  Did  they  take  in  any  people  they  did  not  know  1 


696  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Certainly  they  took  in   more  than   they  knew.     It  was  a  tavern  ;  and  if 
they  had  not  done  this  it  coukl  not  have  been  of  any  service  to  them. 
The  court  took  a  recess  until  to-morrow,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

Friday,  July  12,  1867. 
The  court  met  at  1 0  o'clock  a.  m. 
Examination-in-chief  of  John  A.  W.  Clarvoe  resumed. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 
Q.  When  you  were  interrupted  yesterday,  you  had  proceeded  so  far  as  to 
state  that  you  went,  with  a  number  of  others,  to  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  to 
capture  Booth  and  arrest  John  H.  Surratt.  Now  state,  if  you  please,  taking 
up  your  narrative,  all  that  you  recollect  that  passed  after  you  reached  Mrs. 
Surratt's  house. 

A.  I  went  to  the  house  with  McDevitt,  Lieutenant  Skippon,  and  others. 
McDevitt,  myself,  and  Lieutenant  Skippon  entered  the  house  after  putting  a 
guard  at  the  back  and  at  each  corner.  We  went  up  and  knocked  at  the  door. 
The  door  was  opened  by  a  man  barefoot,  in  his  shirt-sleeves,  and  bareheaded. 
I  asked  him  if  John  Surratt  was  in. 
Q.  Who  was  that  man  1 

A.  He  gave  me  his  name  as  Weichmann.  Said  he,  "  No,  sir,  he  is  not  in  the 
city."  Said  1,  "His  mother  is  in.  Does  she  live  here?"  He  said  "Yes." 
I  told  him  I  would  like  to  see  the  lady.  He  said  she  was  in  bed.  I  told  him 
it  made  no  difference,  I  must  see  her.  Said  he,  "I  will  speak  to  her  first."  As 
he  moved  from  the  door  I  pushed  in,  and  tlie  i-est  followed. 
Q.  Did  you  follow  him  1 

A.  I  followed  Weichman ;  yes,  sir.  He  went  to  the  second  door  in  the  pas- 
sage, to  the  left,  which  I  supposed  to  be  the  back  parlor.  He  went  to  that  door 
and  knocked,  I  think.  When  he  first  went,  he  held  a  conversation  there  a  few 
minutes.  1  went  to  the  door  and  saw  a  lady  standing  there.  I  asked  if  that 
was  Mrs.  Surratt.  She  said  it  was.  I  told  her  I  wanted  to  see  John.  She 
said,  "  John  is  not  in  the  city,  sir."  I  asked  her  when  she  had  seen  him  last. 
Mr.  PlERREPONT  said  the  witness  could  not  say  what  Mrs.  Surratt  stated. 
The  Court  said  the  witness  might  give  in  evidence  all  the  conversation  the 
witness  Weichman  alluded  to  in  his  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  that  was  all  he  asked  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  PlERREPONT  denied  that  Weichman  had  alluded  to  any  such  conversation 
in  his  evidence,  whatever,  and  appealed  to  the  reporters'  notes  to  sustain  him. 

The  notes  of  the  witness  Weichman 's  testimony  having  been  read,  Mr.  Pierre- 
pont  still  denied  that  the  conversation  this  witness  had  commenced  to  relate  was 
referred  to  by  Weichman.     The  conversation  stated  by  Weichman  was 
no  one  else  but  himself  was  present  with  Mrs.  Surratt. 

The  Court  remaiked  that  the  notes  seemed  to  show  that  there  were  two  con- 
versations;  one  between  the  detective  outside  with  Weichman,  and  another 
inside  between  Weichman  and  Mrs.  Surratt.  Anything  relating  to  these  con- 
versations that  the  witness  heard  could  be  stated  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  proposed  to  prove  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  incident 
did  not  occur  as  Weichman  stated  it. 

The  Court  said  the  counsel  might  prove  by  this  witness  whether  the  con- 
versation AVeichman  testified  to  was  in  his  presence. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Weichman  standing  by  the  door  when  this  conversation  passed 
between  you  and  Mrs.  Surratt  ? 

A.  Mr.  Weichman  was  to  my  left.  I  was  on  the  right  of  him,  and  behind 
him  was  McDevitt. 

Q.  Could  you  hear  every  word  that  passed  ? 
A.  I  should  think  so ;  I   could. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  697 

Q.  Was  it  directly  in  continuation  of  the  conversation  he  had  had  with  Mis. 
Surratt — the  former  part  of  the  conversation  ? 

A.  He  had  had  a  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt  before  I  got  to  the  door. 
Q.  Was  that  completed  before  you  came  up,  or  was  it  still  going  on  ? 
A.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  it  was  going  on  or  not  when  1  got  to  the  door. 
Q.  You  do  not  remember  whether  it  had  ceased  before  you  got  there  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Bradley  then  offered  to  give  in  evidence  what  passed  between  the  wit- 
ness Clarvoe  and  Mrs.  Surratt,  in  Weichman's  presence  at  that  time.  He  un- 
derstood the  court  to  overrule  it;  and  he  (Mr.  Bi-adley)  reserved  an  exception 
to  the  ruling  of  the  court. 

Q.  Now  proceed  with  your  narrative.  You  cannot  say  anything  of  wliat  Mrs. 
Surratt  said. 

A.  I  asked  Weichman  then  if  he  belonged  in  the  house.     He  told  me  he  did. 
Said  I,  "  I  want  to  see  in  your  room."     I  left  McDevitt  at  the  door  in  conver- 
sation with  Mrs.  Surratt,  and  went  up  stairs  with  him.     Lieutenant  Skippon,  also, 
was  with  me,  and  another  officer  behind  us. 
Q.  What  did  you  do  ? 

A.  He  carried  me  into  his  room,  from  the  room  that  Mrs  Surratt  occupied, 
the  back  parlor.  I  asked  him  if  he  said  that  was  his  room.  He  said  it  was. 
Said  I,  "Is  ihat  your  trunk?"  He  replied  "Yes,  sir."  It  was  a  large  trunk. 
He  put  his  hand  on  my  shoulder  and  said,  "  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell 
me  the  meaning  of  all  this  1"  Said  I,  "  That  is  a  pretty  question  for  you  to 
ask  me.  Where  have  you  been  to-night  V  He  replied,  "  I  have  been  here  in 
the  house."  Said  I,  'Have  you  been  here  all  the  evening?"  He  said  no,  he 
had  been  down  the  country  with  Mrs.  Surratt.  I  said,  "  Do  you  pretend  to  tell 
me  you  have  not  heard  the  President  has  been  murdered  ?"  He  replied,  "  Great 
God  !  I  see  it  all  !"  or  "  I  see  it  all,  now  !"  He  then  asked  me  if  that  was  true. 
I  told  him  it  certainly  was,  and  pulled  out  a  bow  of  a  neck-handkerchief  which  I 
got  out  of  the  box,  saturated  with  blood.  I  told  him  that  was  the  President's 
blood  ;  that  John  Wilkes  Booth  had  done  it,  that  it  was  supposed  Surratt  had 
assassinated  the  Secretary  of  State.  I  remained  in  his  room  a  few  minutes  and 
started  down  stairs,  Weichman  in  company.     When  I  got  below  I  met  McDevitt 

and  called  him  aside.     I  told  him 

Mr.  PiERKEPONT.  You  need  not  give  your  conversation  with  McDevitt. 
Q.  Before  you  went  down  stairs  did  you  or  not  go  iu  a  room  where  some 
young  ladies  were  ? 
A.  Not  at  that  time. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  went  down  stairs  ? 
A.  I  went  and  had  a  conversation  with  Mrs.  Surratt. 
Q.  Was  Weichman  with  you  ? 
A.  I  do  not  know. 
Q.  Go  on  to  state  what  passed. 

The  Court  said  witness  might  state  the  conversation  that  occurred  with  Mr^ 
Surratt  when  Weichman  and  McDevitt   were  present  after  the  return   down 
stairs. 

WiT.XFSS.  I  do  not  exactly  understand  what  you  want  me  to  state.. 
Mr.  Merrick  read  from  the  testimony  of  the  witness  Weichman  as  to  the 
conversation  that  occurred  after  he  went  down  stairs. 
Mr.  Bradley.  Did  you  go  down  with  Weichman? 
A.  Weichman  came  down  behind  me. 
Q.  Was  Mrs.  Surratt  coming  out  of  her  room  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  was  standing  in  her  room.     She  had  changed  her  dress  before 
we  had  come  down. 

Q.  Had  Weichman  come  down  stairs  before  that — before  he  came  with  you? 
A.  No,  sir ;  he  could  not  have  done  it. 
45 


698  TRIAL   OF    JOHN    H,    SURE  ATT. 

Q.  Did  you  bear  Weichman  say,  "  Mrs.  Surratt,  wliat  do  you  thick  1  Abra- 
ham Lincoln  has  been  murdered  ?"  or  "President  Lincoln  has  been  murdered?'* 
A.   [  did  not  hear  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  her  reply  to  an  observation,  "My  God!  Mr.  Weichman, 
you  do  not  tell  me  so  !" 
A.  No  such  reply  to  me. 

Q.  You  may  state  the  conversation  that  occurred  at  that  time. 
(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.) 

The  Court  said  the  witness  might  state  what  occurred  between  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt, Weichman,  and  himself,  when  all  three  were  together. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  had  not  asked  the  witness  for  anything  else  than  what 
occurred  when  they  were  all  together. 

Witness.  I  am  satisfied  that  Mr.  Weichman  was  with  me  when  I  came  down 
stairs. 

Mr.  Merrick  argued  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  witness  to  state  abso- 
lutely that  Weichman  was  present.  He  stated  that  to  the  best  of  his  belief  they 
had  a  right  to  show  by  proof  aliunde  that  he  was  pi'esent. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  replied  they  might  prove  by  this  witness  or  by  any  other 
person  that  Weichman  was  present  but  until  that  proof  the  conversation  alluded 
to  could  not  be  stated. 

The  Court  decided  that  the  conversation  might  be  given  by  the  witness  and 
that  if  it  was   proved  subsequently  that  Weichman  was  present,  it  would  be 
received  in  evidence,  otherwise  not. 
The  examination  was  then  continued. 

Q.  I  understand  that  you  came  down  stairs  followed  by  Weichman  ? 
A.  I  did  not  say  that.     I  came  down  stairs  followedbyMcDevitt,  and  Weich- 
man followed  him. 

Q.  1  understand  that  you  came  down  stairs,  and  that  a  conversation  passed 
with  INIrs.  Surratt  immediately  on  your  coming  down. 

A.  I  spoke  to  McDevitt  when  I  came  down  stairs  as  I  recollect  now,  Weich- 
man being  on  the  steps  when  1  spoke  to  McDevitt. 
Q.  How  far  off? 

A.  The  stairs  run  up  by  the  side  of  the  door. 
'Q.  How  many  feet  off? 
A.  1  do  not  recollect  how  many  feet. 

■Q.  You  did  not  miss  Weichman  from  you  ?     You  did  not  see  him  go  away  ? 
A.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Bradley.  I  now  ask  you  to  state  the  conversation  ? 
-  (Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pien-epont.     Objection  overruled  by  the  court, 
Avith  the  understanding  that  unless  it  was  subsequently  proved  that  Weichmanu 
was  present,  the  testimony  would  be  ruled  out.) 

Witness.  I  went  to  her,  and  said  I,  Mrs.  Surratt,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  couple 
of  questions  ;  and  be  very  particular  how  you  answer  them,  for  there  is  a  great 
deal  depends  upon  them.  When  did  you  see  John  Wilkes  Booth  ?  She  replied 
she  saw  him  at  two  o'clock  that  day.  Said  I,  when  did  you  see  your  son,  John, 
'last,  and  where  is  he  ?  Said  she :  I  have  told  you,  sir,  I  have  not  seen  John 
for  over  two  weeks.  I  asked  her,  then,  if  she  could  tell  me  where  he  was. 
She  said  the  last  she  heard  of  him  was  in  Canada. 
Q.  Did  she  say  she  had  heard  from  him  that  day  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  1  understood  her  to  say  she  heard  from  him  that  day  ;  that  she 
had  received  a  letter  from  him  that  day,  or  had  heard  from  him,  I  do  not  recol- 
1(  c't  which — one  or  the  other.  She  asked  me  what  was  the  meaning  of  all  this 
and  she  said  there  were  a  great  many  mothers  who  did  not  know  where  their 
sons  were.  Said  I,  Mc,  you  tell  her;  and  then  I  started  up  the  steps. 
Q.  When  you  started  up  the  stairs,  where  did  you  go  ? 
A.  I  went  up  to  a  little  room  over  the  passage.     I  tried  the  door,  it  was 


TEIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  099 

locked.  I  heard  a  female  voice  inside.  At  tliat  time  John  Holalian  came  out 
of  the  door  opposite.  As  he  came  out  I  said  :  John,  how  do  you  do  ?  What 
are  you  doing  here  ?  Says  lie  :  How  are  you,  John  ?  I  am  boarding  here  ? 
What  is  the  matter  1  Said  I  :  How  long  have  you  been  here  ?  He  said  he 
took  a  walk  the  night  before  and  got  in  early,  about  nine  o'clock,  I  think.  I 
told  him  the  President  had  been  murdered.  He  replied  :  Great  God  Almighty  ! 
and  seemed  to  be  surprised.  I  then  took  hold  of  the  door  to  open  it,  and  he 
said  that  was  his  little  daughter  in  there,  and  asked  me  to  come  this  way.  I 
went  up  the  steps  and  when  we  got  on  the  platform,  I  told  him  I  wanted  to  go 
into  that  room.  He  said  his  wife  was  in  there  ;  that  he  would  speak  to  her  and 
let  me  in.  He  asked  if  it  was  true  what  I  told  him.  I  told  him  it  was.  We 
then  started  on  to  the  upper  story,  he  told  me  the  front  room  facing  on  H  street 
was  occupied  by  two  young  ladies,  and  would  I  have  any  objection  for  him  to 
tell  them  that  we  wanted  to  come  in  their  room.  I  told  him  that  I  had  not. 
He  went  to  the  door,  knocked  and  the  door  was  opened.  I  then  slipped  into 
a  little  passage,  or  little  room  over  the  passage,  opened  the  door  and  went  in. 
That  door  was  not  locked. 

Q.  That  was  the  little  room  over  the  passage  at  the  top  of  the  house,  was  it 
not  ?     The  servants'  room  1 

A.  Yes.     When  I  came  out  Mr.  Holahau  said  that  was  the  servants'  room. 

Q.  Did  you  look  in  that  room  I 

A.  I  searched  the  room. 

Q.  If  there  had  been  any  body  lying  on  the  bed  would  you  have  seen  them  ? 

A.  I  certainly  should  have  seen  them. 

Q.  Can  you  state  positively  whether  there  was  a  woman  rolled  up  in  the 
clothes  in  that  bed-room  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  not. 

Q.  What  followed  next  1 

A.  I  stood  there  a  moment,  came  down,  went  to  the  door.  He  told  me  that 
the  ladies  were  ready.  I  went  into  the  room  and  searched  that  room.  The 
ladies  were  covered  up.  I  told  them  they  would  have  to  show  me  their  faces, 
that  they  must  excuse  me.  I  pulled  the  cover  from  their  faces  and  saw  that 
they  were  two  young  ladies. 

Q.  You  are  certain  they  Avere  not  colored  women  ? 

A.  They  were  not  colored  women.  I  have  seen  one  of  the  ladies  in  thirf 
court  room. 

Q.  Was  there  any  colored  woman  in  the  bed  in  Weichmann's  room  ? 

A.  Is  0,' sir. 

Q.  Now  go  down  stairs  if  you  please. 

A.  I  went  down  stairs  and  told  McDevitt  I  thought  it  was  best 

Mr.  PrERREPONT.  No  matter  what  you  told  McDevitt. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Susan  Ann  Jackson  ?     If  so,  tell  us  what  she  said. 

A.  I  then  went  down  into  the  basement,  and  going  down  the  stairs  I  met 
Lieutenant  Skippon.  He  followed  down  behind  me.  At  the  back  room — the 
kitchen — I  saw  a  black  woman.  Says  I,  "Aunty,  is  John  Surratt  in  this  house?" 
Says  she,  "I  do  not  know  him,  sir;  whom  do  you  mean,  j\Irs.  Surratt's  son  ?" 
I  said  I  did  ;  that  I  did  not  know  Mrs.  Surratt  had  a  husband.  "  I  have  not 
seen  him,"  said  she,  "for  over  two  weeks." 

Q.  Did  she  tell  you  she  had  been  covered  up  in  bed  up  stairs  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  she  did  not  mention  that. 

Q.  After  that,  what  did  you  do  ? 

A.  I  went  up  stairs ;  had  a  conversation  with  the  men.  We  searched  the 
house,  closets,  and  cupboards,  and  different  places,  and  then  I  left  there. 

Q.  When  did  you  see  Louis  J.  Weichmann  again  ? 

A.  I  saw  Louis  J.  Weichmann  the  next  morning,  about  9  o'clock. 

Q.  Where] 


700  TRIAL    OF    JOHN   H.    SURE  ATT. 

A.  Tn  the  front  of  our  office,  on  Tenth  street  at  that  time. 

Q.  Was  anybody  with  hi'm  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Holahan  and  Mr.  McDevitt  were  in  conversation  with 
Weichmann  when  I  came  up. 

Q.  Go  back  now  to  your  first  entrance  into  that  house.  When  Weichmau 
opened  the  door,  did  you,  or  anybody  else  in  your  hearing,  tell  him  when  he 
inquired  who  was  there,  "  Government  officers,  come  to  search  the  house  for 
John  Wilkes  Booth  and  John   Surratt  ?" 

A.  Some  one  of  them,  I  think  McDevitt,  replied  that  it  was  officers  ;  that  we 
wished  to  come  in. 

Q  Did  3'ou  tell  him  you  were  there  to  search  the  house  for  John  Wilkes 
Booth,  and  John  Surratt,  or  did  anybody  say  that  in  an  audible  tone  of 
voice  1 

A.  I  did  not,  and  did  not  hear  it. 

Q.  Now,  following  him  up  to  the  time  you  were  on  the  pavement  in  front  of 
the  police  office  or  headquarters,  I  wish  you  to  state  Avhat  foPowed  after  that, 
in  his  presence. 

A.  I  had  very  little  conversation  with  Weichmann.  We  were  getting  up  a 
party. 

Q,.  I  do  not  Avant  to  know  what  you  said,  I  want  to  know  what  was  done 
with  him. 

A.  He  was  with  McDevitt. 

Q.  After  you  went  into  the  house,  what  was  done  with  him  ?  State  whether 
he  was  or  not  put  in  charge  of  somebody. 

A.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  left  that  morning. 

Q.  State  whei-e  you  went  to  and  what  you  did  in  reference  to  this  matter. 

A.  I  went  to  the  First  ward  and  got  some  horses,  and  went  to  Surrattsville. 

Q.  Did  you  see  John  M.  Lloyd  at  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  inquire  of  John  M.  Lloyd  where  Booth  or  anybody  else  was  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  State  what  passed  between  you  and  Mr.  Lloyd. 

(Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant.) 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  proposed  to  contradict  the  witness  Lloyd  in  the  con- 
versation inquired  about,  and  that  he  had  laid  the  foundation  plainly  in  Lloyd's 
testimony. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  Lloyd  was  asked  if  he  did  not  tell  the  officers  that  these 
parties  had  not  passed  there,  and  that  he  replied  he  did,  and  gave  his  feasons. 

Mr.  Bradley  replied  that  he  had  asked  Lloyd  if  that  was  all  that  passed, 
and  the  reply  was,  yes.  Mr.  B.  then  read  from  the  cross  examination  of  the 
witness  Lloyd  to  show  that  he  had  laid  the  foundation  for  contradicting  him,  in 
the  conversation  inquired  of. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  might  be  asked  whether  Lloyd  told  him  that  he 
knew  nothing  about  the  circumstances. 

Q.   Did  he  tell  you  that  he  kuew  nothing  about  the  circumstances  at  all  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  what  circumstances  you  mean.  Inever  mentioned  Herold's 
name  to  him. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  there  was  money  enough  in  this  thing  to  make  both  of 
you  rich,  if  he  would  give  you  the  information  he  possessed  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  there  was  nothing  said  about  money  or  getting  rich. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  knew  nothing  about  the  circumstances  at  all  ? 

A.  Not  in  that  way,  he  did  not. 

Q.  I  now  ask  you  what  he  did  tell  you  ? 

Wit.\E5?s.  Do  you  want  to  know  what  I  said  to  him? 

Mr.  Bradley.  Yes,  and  what  he  said  to  you. 

A.  Well,  sir,  I  went  up  to  the  house  alone.     He  was  standing  in  his  door 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  701 

with  several  on  his  porch.  Said  I  "  John,  how  do  you  do  1"  I  recognized  him 
as  a  man  I  formerly  knew  as  an  officer,  under  Mr.  Barrett,  I  think  it  was.  Said 
I  "  John,  I  would  rather  see  you  now  than  anybody  I  know  except  two  men." 
Said  he  "  come  in."  We  went  into  the  sitting  room.  I  asked  him  if  he  had 
heard  an^/thing.  Said  he  "  I  heard  the  President  had  been  shot  in  the  city." 
Said  I,  "  whom  did  you  hear  that  from  V  He  said  he  heard  it  that  morning 
from  soldiers.  I  asked  him  if  he  heard  it  from  them  this  morning.  He  said 
yes.  I  asked  him  who  they  told  him  did  it.  He  said  "  a  fellow  by  the 
name  of  Booze,  or  something  like  that,  a  circus  actor."  I  told  him  to  get 
back,  that  he  could  not  play  that  sort  of  game  ;  that  Mrs.  Surratt  was  here  the 
day  before ;  and  asked  him  whom  she  was  in  company  with.  He  said  in  com- 
pany with  a  young  man  by  the  name  of  Weichmann.  At  that  time  Bigley  came 
up.  I  went  out  to  meet  Bigley  and  then  went  back  to  the  room  again.  Said  I, 
"  John,  give  me  the  trail."  He  said  he  did  not  know  what  I  was  talking  about. 
I  asked  iiim  if  he  did  not  know  Booth.  He  said  he  did  not.  At  that  time  i[r. 
Bigley  came  in.  We  took  a  drink.  I  then  said  to  Lloyd  that  he  and  I  knew 
these  men  would  be  taken ;  that  if  he  would  give  me  the  trail,  he  was  a  made 
man  and  so  was  I.  He  raised  his  hands  and  said  these  men  could  not  have 
been  past  there ;  that  he  had  been  up  all  night. 

Q.  Was  he  drunk  or  sober  ? 

A.  He  was  sober. 

Q.  After  leaving  Surrattsville,  where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  asked  Lloyd,  if  he  was  in  pursuit  of  these  men,  which  road  he  would 
take.     He  gave  me  the  Piscataway  road. 

Q.  Was  that  the  road  towards  T.  B.  or  Leonardtown  1 

A.  No,  sir.  It  was  my  intention  to  take  the  Beantown  road ;  but  he  put  me 
on  the  Piscataway  road  which  brought  us  back  towards  Washingt(m.  T  was 
with  Weichmann,  Holahan,  McDevitt,  Keys,  and  several  others. 

Q.  Did  you  return  to  Washington  or  go  further  on  ? 

A.  We  went  further  on.  We  did  not  return  to  Washington.  Bigley  and 
myself  did  not,  I  judge,  until  Monday  morning  about  two  o'clock,  when  our 
horses  having  failed,  we  came  back.     Or  it  was  Sunday  night  you  might  say. 

Q.  On  Monday  what  did  you  do  1 

A.  On  Monday  we  were  preparing  to  go.  We  were  .preparing  to  leave  the 
city  and  go  to  Canada. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  Canada,  or  how  far  did  you  go  ? 

A.  I  went  as  far  as  Philadelphia  and  returned.  Then  on  Saturday  I  started 
to  catch  up  with  the  party. 

Q.  Did  you  afterwards  go  to  Canada  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  what  purpose  and  by  whose  orders  ? 

A.  I  went  by  my  own  order,  I  judge,  at  the  time  1  started.  I  went  twice  to 
Canada.  I  left  the  party,  Bigley,  McDevitt,  Holahan,  and  Weichmann,  in  Phila- 
delphia, after  we  had  first  started,  and  relumed  with  a  prisoner. 

Q.  Did  you  go  again  while  they  were  in  Canada  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  state  for  what  piirpose  you  went ;  whether  under  promise  of  reward, 
or  anything. 

A.  On  my  first  trip  to  Canada,  I  went  to  catch  the  party  ahead  of  me.  When 
I  arrived  in  Canada  I  could  get  no  tidings  of  them. 

Q.  No  tidings  of  whom  ? 

A.  I  was  looking  for  Holahan,  McDevitt,  Bigley,  and  Weichmann.  I  returned 
to  Washington  for  want  of  money,  and  then  started  again. 

Q.  What  was  the  purpose  of  your  going  the  second  time  ?  State  whether  you 
had  any  offer,  any  promise  of  reward,  and  if  so,  for  doing  what? 

A  1  will  explain  what  caused  my  trip  last  time.     Last  time  I  started  for 


702  TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT. 

Canada  was  on  a  despatch  received  from  New  York.  It  was  from  McDevitt, 
and  read  "  Send  Clarvoe  immediately  here." 

[The  district  attorney  interrupted  the  witness  by  calling  attention  to  the  fact 
that  other  witnesses  were  present  in  the  room,  in  violation  of  an  order,  as  he 
understood,  on  that  subject.  The  court  replied  that  no  order  had  been  made  on 
that  subject ;  that  Avitnesses  on  both  sides  had  been  in  the  room  all  the  time.] 

A.  I  had  the  promise  of  a  reward  on  my  last  visit  to  Canada;  and  I  will  state 
to  you  the  circumstances  in  connection  with  that  reward.  I  asked  Major  Rich- 
ards to  go  with  me. 

[This  evidence  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  as  not  proper,  so  far  as  he  could 
see.  Mr.  Bradley  said  the  object  was  to  show  the  circumstances  under  which 
witness  went  to  Canada  on  this  occasion.  The  court  remarked  that  he  did  not 
see  what  the  reward  had  to  do  with  it,  but  allowed  the  question  to  be  asked.] 

A.  I  started  to  go  to  assist  the  men  who  were  there. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  else  had  you  to  do  ? 

A.  I  wanted  to  get  Weichmann  and  Holaban  into  the  States. 

Q.  If  you  were  offered  a  reward  for  that,  state  it. 

[Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.  Mr.  Merrick  proposed  to  prove 
that  the  witness  was  offered  a  large  reward  to  bring  Weichmann  home;  Weich- 
mann had  testified  that  he  was  under  no  restraint.  The  court  said  he  did  not  see 
the  relevancy  the  reward  had  to  the  issue.] 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  of  Mr.  Holahan's  getting  clothes  from  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt's  about  the  time  you  were  starting  away  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  on  the  seventeenth;  on  Monday.  I  was  in  a  hack  with 
Mr.  Holahan,  and  started  to  go  to  see  a  lawyer  to  get  the  directions  of  the  party. 
He  a?ked  me  to  drive  past  that  house.  We  went  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  ;  went 
up  stairs.  He  went  into  his  roi.m  and  picked  up  some  things  that  were  on  the 
bed,  and  amongst  them  were  two  handkerchiefs. 

Q.  Did  you  see  these  handkerchiefs,  or  either  of  them  ? 

A.  One  of  them. 

Q.  State  whether  or  not  it  had  a  mark  on  it  ? 

A.  He  showed  it  to  me  and  said,  "  Here  are  some  of  John  Surratt's  handker- 
chiefs."    He  showed  me  one  with  the  name  on  it.     I  told  him  to  keep  them; 
that  we  would  want  them. 
^    Q.  What  name? 

A.   -'John  H.  Surratt"  was  on  the  handkerchief. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  had  a  number  or  mark  on  it  besides  the  name  1 

A.  I  did  not  examine  it  closely.  I  just  merely  took  a  glance  at  it.  That 
was  the  first  I  knew  that  his  name  was  John  H.  Surratt. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  how  the  name  was  put  on,  whether  it  was  across  the. 
corner  or  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

[Handkerchief  hei'etofore  placed  in  evidence  shown  witness.] 

I  do  not  recollect  about  the  name.  The  handkerchief  was  folded  up  [manner 
of  folding  exhibited]  and  I  saw  the  name  on  the  corner. 

Q.  Then  all  you  recollect  about  it  is  that  he  picked  up  a  handkerchief  with 
the  name  of  John  H.  Surratt  on  it,  and  that  you  saw  the  name  on  the  handker- 
chief    Whetlier  it  had  a  number  on,  or  any  other  mark,  you  do  not  remember? 

A.  I  do  not  remember. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont: 
Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 
A.  Detective. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  703 

Q.  You  have  been  in  the  business  for  some  years  ? 

A.  Since  1863  I  have. 

Q.  It  was  Mr.  Weichmann  who  came  to  the  door  with  his  shoes  off,  that  night, 
and  opened  it? 

A.  Yes, sir. 

Q.  It  was  not  Mr.  Holahan  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  are  sure  of  that  ? 

A.  I  am  satisfied  of  it. 

Q.  Mr.  Holahan  told  you  that  he  went  to  bed  that  night  about  nine  o'clock  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  or  a  little  after. 

Q.  Now  take  this  paper  and  pencil  and  draw  the  rooms  on  that  floor  on  which 
these  young  ladies  were,  showing  their  bedroom  and  likewise  showing  Mrs.  Hol- 
ahan's  bedroom.  [Witness  made  a  diagram  of  the  upper  story  of  Mrs.  Surratt's 
house.] 

Q.  Now  tell  me  which  Mrs.  Holahan's  room  was  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Holahan's  room  would  be  under  the  room  marked  "  front."  She 
was  not  on  that  story. 

Q.  Was  Mrs.  Holahan  in  the  room  you  were  told  was  the  servant's  room  in 
that  story  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  She  was  not  in  the  same  story  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  she  was  in  the  story  below. 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  go  out  of  Mrs.  Holahan's  room  to  look  into  the  servant  3 
room  in  the  same  story  ] 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  In  this  servant's  room  you  went  into,  was  there  a  bed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  the  jury  what  time  of  night  it  was  ? 

A.  I  judge  between  two  and  three  o'clock. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  get  to  the  house  1 

A.  About  half-past  two  or  a  little  earlier. 

Q.  How  long  after  you  got  to  the  house  before  you  went  up  to  this  servant's 
room  where  there  was  a  bed  ? 

A.  I  suppose  half  an  hour. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  the  jury  whether  you  put  your  hand  upon  the  bed  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  the  bed  was  warm  or  not  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  you  do  not  know  Avhether  there  was  a  person  covered  up  in  it  or 
not? 

A.  I  know  there  was  no  person  in  it. 

Q.  How  do  you  know  ? 

A.  The  covering  was  thrown  back  and  I  could  see. 

Q.  But  you  did  not  put  your  hand  upon  it.  Can  you  tell  whether  it  had  just 
been  left  or  not  ? 

A.  I  can  only  say  that  it  looked  as  if  it  had  been  tumbled. 

Q.  If  the  person  who  had  been  thei*e  got  up,  they  rose  at  a  pretty  early  hour 
in  the  morning  did  they  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  at  what  time  they  got  up.  They  were  not  there  when  I 
got  there. 

Q.  They  were  not  there  at  three  o'clock  in  the  night  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Tell  when  you  left  that  place  ? 

A.  We  went  back  to  the  oflSce  shortly  after  three. 


704  TRFAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  When  you  went  below  you  say  you  saw  a  colored  woman.  Where  did 
you  see  her  ? 

A.  Down  in  the  first  story. 

Q.  The  basement  you  mean  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  a  basement.     1  think  not. 

Q.  Was  it  in  the  parlor  story  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  it  was  under  the  parlor  story. 

Q.  Where  was  she  ? 

A.  She  was  at  the  door  of  the  back  room. 

Q.  Was  the  door  open  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  there  any  light  there  ? 

A.  We  had  a  candle  there  lighted,  a  spennaceti  candle,  which  I  had  taken 
out  of  my  own  pocket. 

Q.  Was  that  the  only  light  you  had  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  the  house  was  lighted  up. 

Q.  Was  that  part  of  the  house  lighted  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  was  it  lighted  with  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect. 

Q.  Was  the  colored  person  you  saw  there  dressed  ? 

A.  She  had  on  a  kind  of  calico  dress,  some  dark  kind  of  slate-colored  dress, 
open  in  the  bosom,  flowered. 

Q.  You  think  you  are  not  mistaken  about  that  ? 

A.  I  think  I  am  not. 

Q.  You  say  you  called  her  "  aunty."     How  old  a  person  was  she  apparently  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know,  she  may  have  been  twenty-five  or  thirty. 

Q.  Do  you  know  her  age  ? 

A,  I  do  not. 

Q.  Do  you  know  her  name  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Have  j-ou  seen  her  since  1 

A,  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  or  not. 

Q.  You  say  you  went  to  Canada.     What  did  you  go  to  Canada  for  ? 

A.  I  went  to  Canada  to  look  for  John  Surratt. 

Q.  Who  sent  you  ? 

A.  The  government,  or  partly  the  government. 

Q.  Government  ofiicer  ? 

"A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  stated  that  in  your  talk  with  Mrs.  Surratt  that  night  she  told 
you  her  son  was  in  Canada.     Is  that  so  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir  ;  I  heard  her  say  he  was  in  Canada. 

Q.   She  said  so  that  night  of  the  murder? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  she  say  about  mother's  sou's  ? 

A.  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  heard.  She  said  to  me,  "  What  is  the  meaning 
of  all  this  ?"  I  then  said  to  her  I  would  like  her  to  answer  my  question.  Then 
she  said,  "  A  good  many  mothers  do  not  know  where  their  sons  are." 

Q.  When  you  told  her  you  would  like  her  to  answer  your  question,  had  she 
been  evasive  in  her  answer  previously  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Then  why  did  you  tell  her  you  wanted  her  to  answer  your  question  ? 

A.  She  said,  "  What  is  the  meamug  of  all  this  1" 

Q.  At  what  time  did  you  arrive  at  Mr.  Lloyd's  house  when  you  went  out 
there  ? 

A.  Before  twelve  o'clock  on  Saturday,  the  15th. 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT.  705 

Q.  State  to  the  jury  whether  he  was  drunk  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  kowledge.     He  was  not  drunk. 

Q.  He  was  perfectly  sober,  was  he  1 

A.  Apparently. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  knew  nothing  about  it  ? 

A.  He  did  not. 

Q.  Did  he  try  to  mislead  you  1 

A.  I  know  he  did  mislead  me. 

Q.  He  took  great  pains  to  try  to  mislead  you,  and  put  you  on  the  wrong  road, 
did  he  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  took  great  pains  to  put  me  on  the  wrong  road. 
He  told  me  what  road  if  he  Avas  me  he  would  take. 

Q.  That  was  the  wrong  road  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  not  you  think  from  his  conversation  that  he  was  trying  to  mislead 
you  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  !I\Ierrick  on  the  ground  that  only  the  inference 
of  the  witness  was  called  for.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Did  he  say  anything  as  though  he  he  did  not  know  anything  about 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Did  he  use  words  that  conveyed  to  you  the  idea  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  it  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  could  be  asked  to  state  what  he  said  substan- 
tially.) 

Q.  Substantially  what  did  Lloyd  say  1 

A.  ]\Ir.  Lloyd  told  me  they  had  not  been  past  there,  and  could  not  have 
passed  there  without  his  knowing. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  they  could  not  have  passed  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  and  that  he  had  been  up  all  night. 

Q.  What  further  did  he  tell  you  1 

A.  He  told  me  he  had  heard  it  that  morning  from  some  soldiers ;  that  they 
told  him  it  was  some  man  by  the  name  of  Booze,  or  something  like  that,  a  circus 
actor. 

Q.  What  did  you  tell  him  if  he  would  tell  you  about  the  making  of  you  ? 
Give  the  exact  words  as  nearly  as  you  can  remember. 

A.  I  told  him  that  his  experience  as  an  officer  would  tell  him  that  these  men 
were  bound  to  be  caught;  to  give  me  the  trail  and  he  was  a  made  man,  and  so 
was  L 

Q.  Did  you  get  him  to  give  you  the  trail  even  on  that  offer  ? 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  He  carefully  concealed  it,  did  he  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley  and  withdrawn.) 

Q.  Which  Avay  did  the  Piscataway  road  lead  ? 

A.  It  led  to  the  right. 

Q.  And  if  you  followed  it  where  did  it  take  you  to  ? 

A.  It  brought  me  into  Piscataway. 

Q.  If  you  had  gone  further  where  would  it  have  carried  you  ? 

A.  I  judge  I  could  have  gone  to  Washington. 

Q.  Then  it  led  towards  Washington,  did  it  1 

A.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  did  or  not.  I  believe  it  Avas  the  river  road  to 
Washington. 

Q.  You  did  not  get  any  information  from  Mr.  Lloyd  that  put  you  on  the  trail 
of  the  murderers,  did  you  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


706  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  information  or  statement  from  Mr.  Lloyd  that  put  you 
off  the  trail  of  the  murderers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  say  you  went  with  Mr.  Holahan  back  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  to  get  some 
clothes  on  the  17th.     What  time  in  the  day  did  you  go  ? 

A.  About  two  o'clock,  I  judge,  in  the  afternoon.     One  or  two  o'clock. 

Q.  Now  when  you  got  to  the  house  where  did  you  go  to? 

A.  We  went  up  stairs. 

Q.  To  what  story  ] 

A.  To  the  second  story — the  story  over  the  parlor. 

Q.  What  did  you  find  there  ? 

A.  I  did  not  find  anything.     He  picked  up  some  clothing. 

Q.  Where  did  he  get  it  from  ? 

A.  From  the  bed. 

Q.  Any  other  clothes  than  the  two  handkerchiefs  ?     What  other  clothes  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Did  they  lay  spread  out  on  the  bed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  They  were  clean  ? 

A.  Apparently. 

Q.  Ironed  and  folded  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  This  was  Monday,  I  understand  you.  Had  both  handkerchiefs  Surratt's 
name  on  them  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.     He  showed  me  one. 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you  1 

A.  When  he  showed  me  the  handkerchief  I  told  him  to  keep  them,  that  we 
should  want  them.     My  intention  was  to  get  them  from  him. 

Q.  You  thought  they  would  furnish  some  clue  to  John  Surratt  ? 

A.  I  thought  so. 

Q.  He  put  them  in  his  pocket  did  he  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  I  suppose  you  would  not  know  that  handkerchief  if  you  were  to  see  it  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  know  Mr.  Holahan  pretty  well,  do  you  not  ? 

A.  I  had  known  Mr.  Holahan  when  he  was  in  the  substitute  business. 

Q.  What  substitute  business  i 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  You  went  to  Canada  and  saw  Mr.  Holahan  there  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q,  Did  you  talk  with  him  about  the  handkerchiefs  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  Mr.  Holahan  tell  you  anything  about  losing  the  handkerchief  1 

A.  Yes,  sii'. 

Q.  Where  did  he  tell  you  he  lost  it  ? 

A.  He  told  me  he  had  lost  the  handkerchief  in  the  depot. 

Q.  Where  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  depot. 

Q.  Did  he  tell  you  he  lost  it  at  St.  Albans  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  the  depot. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  objected  to  the  question ;  it  had  been  answered.  Wit- 
ness had  already  stated  he  did  not  recollect  what  depot  it  was. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  he  had  no  further  questions  to  ask. 


I 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN'  H.  SURE  ATT.  707 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  that  you  do  not  know  that  you  have  seen  that  colored  woman 
since  that  night.  Were  you  here  when  Susan  Jackson  was  examined  or  recalled 
for  cross-examination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  whether,  to  the  best  of  your  recollection,  she  was  the  woman. 

A.  I  thought  she  was  the  woman.  I  saw  her  coming  across  the  court-house 
square,  and  1  thought  she  was  the  woman,  but  I  do  not  know  it. 

Q.  To  the  best  of  your  recollection  and  belief  she  was  the  woman  ? 

A.  That  was  a  woman  of  her  stature — a  square-shouldered  woman.  There 
were  two  or  three  officers  in  company  with  me  that  made  me  speak  of  her. 

James  A.  McDevitt,  detective  officer  Metropolitan  Police,  sworn  and  ex- 
amined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Will  you  state  whether  on  the  night  of  the  J  4th  of  April,  1865,  or  the 
morning  of  the  loth,  you  took  any  steps  to  discover  and  arrest  the  assassins  of 
the  President  ? 

A.  I  did.     I  received  information  that  J.  Wilkes  Booth  had  fired  the  shot. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  house  of  Mrs.  Surratt  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  went  with  you  ? 

A.  Lieutenant  Charles  M.  Skippon,  sixth  precinct,  then  sergeant  of  the  pre- 
cinct, and  a  squad  of  his  men,  Mr.  Clarvoe  and  myself,  and  Mr.  Donaldson,  one 
of  our  detective  officers. 

Q.  State  at  what  time  you  arrived  there,  and  give  as  well  as  you  recollect  a 
narrative  of  the  incidents  that  occurred. 

A.  I  think  after  the  bell  was  rung,  a  lady  put  her  head  out  of  the  second 
story  window — that  is  the  window  over  the  parlor — and  asked  us  who  it  was. 
We  asked  for  Mrs.  Sui-ratt,  if  she  lived  there ;  she  said,  she  did ;  we  said,  we 
wish  to  come  in  immediately ;  the  door  was  then  opened  by  Mr.  Weichmann ; 
he  was  dressed  in  his  shirt  sleeves,  and  I  think  he  was  in  his  stocking  feet ;  his 
shirt  was  open  in  the  bosom ;  I  think  he  had  one  suspender  on,  but  I  am  not 
certain  ;  we  asked  for  John  Surratt ;  he  said,  he  was  not  at  home ;  we  found  a 
shawl  lying  there  in  the  passage,  and  asked  whose  shawl  that  was.  It  was 
covered  with  mud. 

Mr.  Bradley  said  he  supposed  he  could  not  inquire  about  that  shawl. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  did  not  object 

Mr.  Bradley.  Then  go  on  and  state  about  the  shawl. 

Witness.  I  asked  Weichmann  whose  shawl  it  was;  he  said  it  was  a  shawl 
he  had  used  in  going  to  Surrattsville  with  Mrs.  Surratt  that  day.  I  went  to  the 
door  occupied  by  Mrs.  Surratt ;  I  think  there  were  some  ladies  in  the  room 
with  her — one,  at  any  rate ;  the  question  was  asked  her  where  her  son  was. 
She  said  she  had  not  seen  him  since  the  fall  of  Richmond. 

Q.  Who  was  present  when  this  conversation  took  place  1 

A.  Mr.  Weichmann  and  Mr.  Clarvoe.  She  turned  to  Mr.  Weichmann  and  says, 
'•How  long  has  that  been,  Mr.  Weichmann  ?  "  He  replied,  "About  two  weeks." 
I  then  went  to  Mr.  Holohan's  room,  and  saw  himself  and  his  wife ;  they  told 
me  their  daughter  occupied  a  small  room  just  as  you  go  up  stairs — a  front  room. 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  ? 

A.  I  think  1  was  accompanied  by  Mr.  Clarvoe;  I  am  not  positive  ;  I  have  not 
given  this  matter  a  great  deal  of  attention,  never  having  thought  of  being  called 
here,  and  I  may  not  be  able  to  give  as  accurate  an  account  of  it  as  I  could  have 
done  at  the  time;  I  asked  Mrs.  Surratt,  1  think,  when  she  had  heard  from  her 
son. 


708  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SDRRATT. 

By  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Was  that  after  you  came  down  1 

A.  I  think  before ;  but  I  will  not  be  positive  whether  before  or  after. 

By  Mr.  Bradlev: 

Q.  "Were  Mr.  Weic^imann  and  Mr.  Olarvoe  present  during  that  conversation  ? 

A.  I  will  not  swear  positively;  I  think  they  were  present  when  I  asked 
where  the  letter  was  that  she  had  received. 

Mr.  Pierrepont.  You  need  not  tell  about  that  letter. 

Mr.  Bradley.  Was  that  a  part  of  the  conversation  1 

Witness  I  think  they  were  present  wlien  I  asked  about  the  letter  she  had 
received.  She  said  it  was  somewhere  about  the  house,  and  asked  some  one  to 
find  it  for  her. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  objected  to  anything  in  relation  to  a  letter  not  produced 
being  given  by  the  witness. 

The  Court  replied  that  if  it  was  a  part  of  the  conversation  in  the  presence 
of  Weichmann,  witness  might  testify  to  what  was  stated. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  remarked  that  the  witness  had  not  said  Weichmann  was 
there. 

Witness.  I  said  I  thought  he  was  present. 

The  Court  to  witness.  If  there  was  any  more  conversation,  you  may  state 
what  was  said  in  the  presence  of  Weichmann. 

Witness.  I  will  not  state  anything  that  I  do  not  think  to  be  correct.  I 
asked  where  that  letter  was  she  received  that  day ;  she  said  it  was  somewhere 
about  the  house,  and  asked  some  one  to  get  it ;  they  did  not  find  the  letter,  or, 
at  least,  I  did  not  see  it. 

Q.  When  you  stated  that,  did  you  go  down  to  the  basement  1 

A.  This  was  in  the  basement,  in  the  front  basement  room — the  dining  room  I 
suppose.  After  searching  for  the  letter  we  started  for  the  kitchen  door,  and 
there  saw  two  colored  females. 

Q.  Describe  tliem  if  you  can. 

A.  That  is  quite  impossible  for  me  to  do. 

Q.  State  whether  one  was  a  girl  and  one  a  woman. 

A.  I  do  not  know ;  one  was  darker  than  the  other. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  Were  they  both  grown  ? 

A.  I  will  not  be  positive  about  that.  The  question  was  asked,  "Where  is 
John  Surratt,  is  he  secreted  about  the  house  1  "  One  of  these  women  says,  "I 
do  not  know."  I  think  Mr.  Clarvoe  said,  "You  don't  know;"  she  says,  "Do 
you  mean  Mrs.  Surratt's  son  ?  "  He  replied,  "I  did  not  know  that  Mrs.  Surratt 
was  married  ;  I  did  not  know  that  there  was  but  one  John  Surratt."  She  says, 
"  If  you  are  speaking  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  son,  I  have  not  seen  him  for  some  time, 
about  two  weeks."  I  then  went  to  the  door,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  and 
proceeded  with  others  to  search  the  stable. 

Q.  According  to  the  best  of  your  recollection  and  belief,  have  you  seen  that 
woman  since  then  ? 

A.  I  will  not  swear  positively  whether  I  saw  her  or  not. 

Q.  I  ask  you  for  the  best  of  your  recollection  and  belief. 

A.  The  other  day  I  was  standing  outside  here,  having  been  subpoenaed  for 
the  defence,  and  said  I  was  going  aAvay  ;  that  I  did  not  know  what  they  wanted. 
They  said  they  just  wanted  me  to  see  a  party.  While  I  was  standing  there  in 
company  with  Mr.  Clarvoe  and  Mr.  Boss,  this  woman  came  up  stairs.  Mr. 
Clarvoe  remarked,  "There  goes  a  woman  who  looks  like  the  woman  at  Mrs. 
Surratt's  house  that  night."    I  could  not  swear  whether  she  was  the  one  or  not. 

Q.  What  do  you  think  1 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  709 

A.  I  will  not  swear  whether  she  is  the  woman  or  not. 

Q.  What  is  your  opinion  about  it  ? 

A.  All  I  can  say  is,  there  were  two  of  these  women,  and  that,  according  to 
my  recollection,  one  was  a  dark  woman,  and  the  other  light  complected.  You 
must  remember  that,  in  my  position  as  a  detective  in  seeing  so  many,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  remember  a  person  with  a  certainty  that  long. 

Q.  After  that,  what  occurred  1 

A.  After  we  had  searched  tlie  house,  I  ordered  Weichmanu  and  Holohan  to 
report  at  our  office  at  9  o'clock  in  the  morning.    They  reported  before  that  time. 

Q.  Did  you  or  not  put  either  of  these  officers  in  charge  of  Mr.  Weichmann  ? 

A.  I  took  charge  of  Mr.  Weichmann  and  told  him  to  consider  himself  in  my 
charge ;  that  if  any  one  came  after  him  to  arrest  him,  to  tell  them  that  I  had 
him  arrested  and  that  he  was  in  my  charge.  Weichmann  went  with  me  to  my 
house  to  breakfast  on  Sunday  morning. 

Q  State  whether  he  was  kept  under  arrest,  or  whether  he  was  allowed  to  go 
at  large  until  he  reached  Canada  ? 

A.  Up  to  the  time  he  reached  Canada  I  think  Mr.  Weichmann  was  in  my 
custody  except  when  he  was  at  police  headquarters.  This  is  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge.  I  went  into  the  country  with  Weichmann  and  returned  with  him 
Saturday  evening.  He  asked  me,  when  we  got  to  police  headquarters,  what 
was  going  to  be  done  with  him.  I  told  him  he  was  to  remain  there.  He  said, 
"  Are  you  going  to  hold  me  ?"  I  replied,  "  Certainly  we  will  have  to  hold  yuu." 
I  left  him  there  at  the  police  headquarters  and  went  with  Mr.  Holohan  out  on 
some  business. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrrpo.xt  : 

Q.  Do  you  know  anything  about  this  order  which  has  been  referred  to  in  evi- 
dence several  times  ?  (Order  in  evidence  for  McDevitt,  Weichmann,  Holohan, 
&:c.,  as  special  officers  to  proceed  to  New  York  city,  &c.,  shown  witness,) 

Witness.  That  is  not  correct. 

Q.  Have  you  the  original  with  you  1 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Read  it. 

(The  order  read  by  witness  is  the  same  as  that  already  iu  evidence  except  as 
to  the  Christian  name  of  Mr.  Holohan.) 

Q.  Did  you  and  Mr.  AVeichmann  go  as  special  officers  under  that  order  1 

A.  We  went  under  that  order. 

Q.  AVhere  did  you  go  ? 

A.  To  the  city  of  New  York  and  from  there  to  Canada. 

Q.  Were  you  with  Mr.  AVeichmann  in  Canada? 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  You  were  not  with  him  all  the  time  ? 

A.  I  was  not. 

Q.  Did  he  come  back  with  you  ? 

A.  He  came  with  Mr.  Bigley,  one  of  our  detective  officers. 

Q.  How  long  was  he  with  you  in  Canada  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  I  saw  uo  more  of  him  until  he  returned  to  New  York 
after  I  left  Canada. 

Q.  Did  he  come  back  afterwards  ? 

A.  He  came  back  afterwards  to  New  York,  and  came  on  to  AVashington 
with  me. 

Q.  And  remained  here  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  object  of  your  visit  to  Canada  to  search  for  Surratt  1 

A.  That  was  one  object. 

Q.  You  did  all  you  could  iu  that  search? 


710  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  Of  course. 

Q.  You  did  not  succeed  ? 

A.  We  did  not. 

Q.  You  told  us  about  a  letter  Mrs.  Surratt  alluded  to;  you  did  not  find  that 
letter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  saw  that  letter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  could  not  find  it  in  the  house  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  searched  for  it  ? 

A.  We  made  no  extraordinary  search. 

Q.  But  you  searched  for  it  and  could  not  find  it ;  then  you  went  into  the  base- 
ment and  saw  two  colored  women — where  1 

A.  In  the  passage-way. 

Q.  It  was  rather  dark,  was  it  not  ? 

A.  We  had  a  light. 

Q.  What  light  ? 

A.  I  think  Mr.  Clarvoe  or  somebody  had  a  candle. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Did  you  say  it  was  rather  dark  in  that  passage  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not. 

By  Mr.  Pferrepont  : 

Q.  Was  it  dark  or  light  ? 

A.  It  was  light  enough  to  tell  a  negro  from  a  white  person. 

Q.  You  could  tell  a  negro  from  a  white  person  in  that  light  ? 

A.  Indeed  I  could. 

Q .  You  did  not  require  a  very  strong  light  for  that  ? 

A.  We  certainly  had  sufficient  light  for  that. 

Q.  Did  you  have  sufficient  light  to  tell  how  these  colored  women  were  dressed  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  did  not  take  particular  notice  of  that. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  how  either  one  was  dressed  ] 

A.  I  could  not. 

Q.  Was  one  dressed  in  a  slate  colored  calico  dress? 

A.  It  would  be  difficult  for  me  to  say  whether  either  had  a  calico  dress  on 
or  not.  Calicoes  sometimes  look  like  silk  on  the  street;  they  do  not  bear  ex- 
amination. 

Q.  Were  they  both  about  the  same  height  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  to  that. 

Q.  What  time  in  the  night  was  it  ? 

A.  I  judge  we  got  to  the  house  in  the  neighborhood  of  two.  It  may  have 
been  a  little  before  or  a  little  after. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  either  of  these  women  in  bed,  did  you  ? 

A.  I  did  not  go  into  that  room  at  all. 

Q.  Could  you  tell  which  of  the  two  was  taller  ? 

A.  I  could  not.  I  only  knew  there  were  two  colored  females,  and  that  one 
of  the  two  made  use  of  this  language. 

Q.  You  could  not  tell  which  was  the  taller,  and  which  was  the  shorter  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  could  not  tell  the  age  of  either  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  been  examined  once  before  ? 

A.  I  have. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  711 

Q.  Did  you  give  any  statement  at  that  time  in  relation  to  seeing  two  colored 
women  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  because  persons  at  that  trial  were  only  allowed  to  state  certain 
matters. 

Q.  And  you  did  not  give  any  statement  about  it  1 

A.  Not  that  I  remember.     I  am  not  certain. 

Q.  Did  you  state  in  your  foi-mer  trial,  as  follows:  "Mi-.  Weichmann  accom- 
panied me  to  Canada.  I  took  him  to  identify  John  H.  Surratt.  He  went  with 
me  willingly  in  pursuit  of  the  assassins,  and  was  zealous  and  earnest  in  pei*- 
forming  the  part  allotted  him  in  the  pursuit,  and  although  he  had  every  oppor- 
tunity to  escape  he  did  not.  I  left  him  in  Canada  when  I  returned  to  New 
York.  I  could  not  state  from  my  own  knowledge  of  John  Surratt's  writing— 
thatthe  entry  on  the  register  of  the  St.  Lawrence  Hall  is  his  ] " 

A.  I  stated  that. 

Q.  All  of  it  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  it  is  true? 

Mr.  Bradley  asked  whether  it  was  proper  for  counsel  to  read  the  same  fects 
witness  had  stated  from  the  record  of  another  trial,  and  ask  whether  he  had 
said  it. 

Mr.  PiERREPONT  said  witness  had  not  testified  to  a  part  of  the  facts  he  had 
read. 

The  Court  remarked  that  it  was  a  waste  of  time  to  read  from  the  former 
testimony  of  the  witness  the  same  statement  he  bad  now  made,  but  that  counsel 
were  wasting  more  in  quarrelling  about  it. 

Question  repeated. 

A.  I  think  my  statement  in  the  former  trial  is  all  correct. 

Q.  When  Susan  Jackson  was  recalled  the  other  day,  did  you  not  come  in 
and  stand  beside  the  foreman  of  the  jury  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  not  you  look  at  her  then  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  And  did  you  talk  to  her  after  she  left  the  stand  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  her  if  she  was  the  woman  ] 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  ask  her  if  she  was  not  the  woman  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  said  something  to  her  ? 

A.  I  did;  here  is  what  I  said  to  her. 

Mr.  Bradley.  You  need  not  state  that. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  her  what  I  have  said  in  substance  ? 

Mr.  Merrick  objected  to  the  question  as  inadmissible. 

The  Court  said  the  witness  might  be  asked  whether  he  identified  this  woman 
on  that  occasion. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  You  liave  already  stated  you  would  not  swear  she  was  the  woman.  What 
is  your  best  recollection  as  to  that  ? 

A.  I  will  not  swear  I  believe  her  to  be  the  woman  or  not  the  woman. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  have  produced  an  original  document  under  which  you  went  to  Canada. 
State  the  ci'-cumstances  under  which  the  order  was  made  and  the  object  of  it. 
Mr.  PiERREPOXT  said  the  order  would  show  for  itself. 
Mr.  Bradley  said  it  was  nothing  more  than  an  order  for  transportation. 


712  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Witness  remarked  that  the  order  in  evidence  was  precisely  like  the  original 
he  had  produced,  except  that  the  name  of  John  Holohan,  iu  the  original,  was 
written  George  Holohan  in  the  copy  in  evidence. 

Q.  Did  you  not  obtain  the  order  ? 

A.  I  obtained  this  order;  it  was  written  under  my  instructions;  that  is,  I 
dictated  it. 

Q.  Did  you  ask  them  to  appoint  Holohan  and  Weichmann  as  special  oflScers  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  wanted  they  should  go  in  as  special  officers.  I  thought  we 
might  have  trouble  if  they  were  not  mentioned  in  some  form. 

Q.  You  were  asked  about  the  light  in  that  passage  at  Mrs.  Surratt's.  The 
counsel  on  the  other  side  understood  you  to  say  it  was  a  dim  light,  hardly 
enough  to  distinguish  between  the  color  of  persons.  Did  you  say  there  was  a 
dim  light  in  the  passage  1 

A.  I  said  there  was  light  enough  to  distinguish  between  a  white  person  and 
a  negro. 

Q.  If  you  had  examined  their  dress,  was  there  not  light  enough  for  that  1 

A.  If  there  had  been  as  much  again  light  I  would  not  have  paid  any  attention. 

Q.  Was  there  light  enough  to  distinguish  the  color  of  their  dress  if  you  had 
examined  it  ? 

A.  I  should  think  so. 

Lieutenant  Chas.  A.  Skippon  recalled  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  State  to  the  coiart  and  jury  whether  jou  were  with  these  officers  in  their 
examination  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  the  night  of  the  assassination. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  State  whether  you  saw  any  colored  women  there. 

A.  I  saw  two  colored  women  down  iu  the  basement. 

Q.  Describe  them  as  well  as  you  can  ] 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  one  of  them  was  a  rather  stout,  thick  set 
woman ;  the  other  was  rather  slim  built,  about  the  same  height. 

Q.  About  the  same  color  ? 

A.  No ;  she  was  a  mulatto. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  between  Mr.  Clarvoe  and  one  of  these 
colored  women  or  not? 

A.  I  heard  one  of  the  detectives — I  cannot  state  positively  which — ask  one 
of  the  colored  women  when  she  last  saw  Mr.  John  Surratt.  As  I  under- 
stood her,  she  said  she  had  not  seen  him  for  several  days. 

Q.  I  asked  you  the  other  day,  1  believe,  whether  you  had  seen  that  woman 
since . 

A.  I  would  not  know  her  were  I  to  see  her. 

E.  H.  Wyvill,  physician.  Prince  George  county,  Maryland,  sworn  and  ex- 
amined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley: 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  gentleman  of  your  name  iu  Prince  George  county  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mrs.  Surratt  iu  her  lifetime  ? 
A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  drive  home  to  her  house,  in  the  month  of  March,  1865,  a 
buggy  and  pair  of  horses,  one  white  and  the  other  gray  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  no  horses  of  any  color,  and  no  horses  at  all. 
Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepont  : 

Q.  Were  you  in  Washington  in  186/5,  in  the  month  of  March  ? 

A.  I  hardly  know.     I  think  it  is  very  possible.     I  was  here  very  frequently, 

Q.  Were  you  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house,  iu  this  city,  in  that  month  ? 


TRIAL    OF   JOHN    H.    SURRATT  713 

A.  I  never  was  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  in  this  city. 

Q.  Were  you  at  the  stable  back  of  her  house  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  kept  my  horses  there. 

Q.  ^V^ere  you  there  in  the  mouth  of  March  ? 

A.  I  could  not  say  positively.  As  I  stated  just  now,  I  was  here  very  fre- 
quently. 

Q.  Did  you  know  Mrs.  Slater  1 

A.  No. 

Q.  You  knew  Mrs.  Surratt  and  you  saw  her  in  the  month  of  March  ? 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did.  I  very  seldom  saw  Mrs.  Surratt  after  she  left  the 
country. 

Q.  Did  you  see  her  down  in  the  country  after  that? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,.  Did  you  see  her  son  in  the  country  in  the  month  of  March  ? 

(Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Bradley.     Objection  subsequently  withdrawn.) 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  hira  between  the  20th  and  28th  of  March  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  When  did  you  last  see  him  down  there  ? 

A.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  saw  John  Surratt  the  last  time  either  ia 
December,  1864,  or  the  early  part  of  January,  1S65. 

Q.  You  never  saw  him  there  afterwards  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Mrs.  Surratt  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  memory  of  going  to  that  stable  in  the  latter  part  of  March 
1865? 

A.  I  have  not,  but  very  likely  I  was  there.  I  attend  market  and  come  in 
very  frequently,  perhaps  every  week. 

Q.  Do  you  know  about  any  horses  coming  up  about  that  time? 

A.  Nothing  whatever. 

HoNORA  FiTZPATRiCK  recalled  and  examined. 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  You  stated  in  your  former  examination  that  you  staid  with  Mrs,  Surratt 
did  you  occupy  her  room  with  her  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  sleep  with  her  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  room  was  it  she  occupied  ? 

A.  It  was  the  room  back  of  the  parlor. 

Q.  What  kind  of  doors  were  there  between  that  room  and  the  parlor  ? 

A.  Folding  doors. 

Q.  You  recollect  the  night  of  the  assassination,  had  you  seen  John  Surratt 
about  the  house  that  day  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  had  elapsed  since  you  had  seen  him  ? 

A.  It  had  been  about  two  weeks  before  the  assassination. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  come  to  the  house  on  that  occasion  ? 

A.  I  think  he  came  between  eight  and  nine  o'clock. 

Q.  Where  did  you  see  him  on  that  occasion,  in  the  parlor  first,  or  where  ? 

A.  I  met  him  in  the  parlor. 

Q,  Who  was  present  with  him  ? 

A.  Mr.  Weichman,  Miss  Surratt,  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins,  and  myself 

46 


714  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUERATT. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anytliing  about  bis  taking  supper  on  tbat  nigbt,  and  if 
you  bad  anytbing  to  do  witb  it,  state  all  about  it  ? 

A.  I  was  in  tbe  parlor  and  bis  motber  asked  me  if  I  would  not  go  down  and 
get  eomptbing  for  Jobn  to  eat.  I  Avent  down,  and  wben  supper  was  ready  I 
called  Mrs.  iSurratt,  and  tbey  botb  came  down  togetber. 

Q.  Now  please  go  on  and  state  wbat  occurred, 

A.  Wben  I  was  tbere  a  colored  woman  came  in  and  brougbt  tbe  tea. 

Q.  Tbe  colored  woman  who  testified  bere,  ISusan  Ann  Jackson  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  bad  tbis  colored  woman  been  at  tbe  bouse  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  bow  long,  1  know  sbe  came  during  tbe  week  Mr. 
Jobn  Surratt  was  absent  from  bome. 

Q.  It  was  tbe  week  preceding  tbis  supper  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  Wben  ibis  colored  woman  came  in,  Mrs.  Surratt  said  to  ber 
•'  bere  is  my  son  Jobn,  don't  you  tbink  be  resembles  bis  sister  Anna  1  " 

Q.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  any  supper  tbe  nigbt  of  tbe  assassination 
wben  Jobn  was  tbere,  or  wben  any  conversation  of  tbat  sort  occurred  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  say  positively  that  nothing  of  tbe  kind  occurred  tbe  nigbt  of  the 
asgassination  ? 

A.  J  know  Mr.  Surratt  was  not  in  tbe  house  tbat  night. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Atzerodt  come  to  tbe  house  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  In  whose  company  was  Atzerodt  usually  when  he  came  there  ? 

A.  I  generally  saw  him  with  Mr.  Weicbman  more  than  witb  any  other 
gentleman  in  tbe  house. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  him  wear  Mr.  Weichman's  clothes  1 

A.  I  met  him  on  H  street  one  evening,  and  Mr.  Atzerodt  had  on  Mr.  Weich- 
man's blue  coat  and  bis  bat. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  Weicbman  dressed  in  Atzerodt's  clothes  more  than  once  ? 

A.  I  never  saw  Mr.  Weicbman  dressed  in  Mr.  Atzerodt's  clothes,  and  I  only 
saw  Mr.  Atzerodt  dressed  in  Mr.  Weichman's  clothes  but  once. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  a  man  who  visited  that  house  by  the  name  of  Wood  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  him  called,  in  tbat  bouse,  by  any  other  name  tlian  Wood  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  only  knew  him  by  tbe  name  of  Wood. 

Q.  Was  be  ever  introduced  in  your  presence  by  the  name  of  Payne  by  Mr. 
Weicbman  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  remember  hearing  any  name  but  Wood. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  see  that  man  afterwards  under  the  name  Payne  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  saw  him  at  the  assassination  trial  I 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  saw  him  tbere,  that  was  tbe  first  time  I  knew  his  name  was 
.  Payne. 

Q.  Who  brought  him  to  tbe  bouse  and  introduced  him,  do  you  recollect  ? 

A.  I  received  an  introduction  to  him  through  Mr.  Weicbman. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Was  he  introduced  to  you  by  Weicbman  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Under  wbat  name  ? 

A.  Mr.  Wood. 

Q.  Was  be  introduced  to  you  by  Mr.  Weicbman  by  the  name  of  Payne  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  715 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  who  drove  the  pair  of  horses  home  when  John  went 
away  on  the  26th  of  March,  1865  ? 

A.  I  think  they  were  driven  home  by  Mr.  David  Barry, 

Q.  Do  you  recollect,  some  time  in  March,  taking  a  walk  with  Mrs.  Snrratt, 
Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Anna  iSurratt,  and  Mr.  Weichman  when  Mrs.  Surratt 
stopped  at  the  Herndon  House  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  say  who  she  was  going  to  see  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  heard  her  mention  who  she  was  going  to  see. 

Q    Did  she  say  she  was  going  to  see  Payne  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  you  did  not  know  him  by  the  name  of  Payne  at 
that  time  1 

A.  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  Anna  Surratt  go  into  that  house  with  her  mother  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  State  as  nearly  as  you  can  recollect  who  the  parties  were,  and  what  oc- 
curred ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt,  Mr.  Weichman,  Miss  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins  and  myself 
went  down  to  St.  Patrick's  church  on  that  evening.  When  we  were  returning 
Mrs.  Surratt  stopped  at  this  house,  and  her  daughter  went  in  with  her. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  ? 

A.  Mr.  Weichman,  Miss  Jenkins,  and  myself  walked  up  not  very  far  fi'om 
that  bouse,  then  we  turned,  Mrs.  Surratt  came  out  and  we  went  home. 

Q.  Did  you  go  down  E  street  and  then  down  10th  street  before  Mrs.  Sur- 
ratt returned  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  we  did  not  leave  the  square  the  house  was  on. 

Q.  I  understand  that  you  parted  with  her  at  the  front  door  of  the  house, 
then  walked  along  down  the  street  the  house  was  on,  then  turned  and  Miss  Sur- 
ratt and  her  mother  joined  you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  leave  the  street  on  which  the  house  was,  or  the  square  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  you  at  supper  at  Mrs.  Surratt's  house  on  the  night  of  the  assassi- 
nation ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  was  with  Miss  Surratt.  Mr.  Weichman  and  Mrs.  Surratt 
came  to  supper  together.  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Anna  Surratt,  and  myself  were 
there  when  Mr.  Weichman,  and  ]\[rs.  Surratt  took  their  supper. 

Q.  That  was  after  they  came  back  from  Surrattsville  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  About  what  time  in  the  day  was  it  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  between  8  and  9  o'clock. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  leave  the  table  at  any  time  that  night  while  they  were 
eating  supper  ? 

A.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Q.  You  were  there  all  the  time  were  you  while  they  were  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     I  do  not  remember  her  leaving. 

Q.  While  they  were  at  supper,  did  you  hear  any  footsteps  going  up  the  outer 
stairs  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Was  the  bell  rung  at  the  door  and  answered  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  the  footsteps  that  went  up  the  stairs  go  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  do  not  remember  that. 


716  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  answer  that  bell  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  Mrs.  Surratt  leaving  the  dining-room  while  I  was 
there, 

Q.  Who  answered  that  bell  at  that  time  1 

A.  It  was  Miss  Anna  Surratt. 

At  this  point  the  court  took  a  recess  for  half  an  hour. 

AFTERNOON    SESSION, 

On  reassembling  the  examination  of  Mrs,  Honora  Fitzpatrick  was  resumed  : 
By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q,  Did  you  go  anywliere  in  company  with  Mrs.  Surratt  on  the  Thursday 
morning  preceding  the  day  of  the  assassination  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir.  Mrs.  Surratt  and  myself  went  to  early  mass  at  St.  Patrick's 
church. 

Q,  What  did  you  go  for  ? 

A.  I  went  there  to  confession. 

Q,  Did  she  do  so  also  ? 

A,  Yes,  sir, 

Q,  You  say  you  were  at  supper  with  Mrs,  Surratt,  Mr,  Weichman  and  Mr. 
and  Mrs.  Holahan  after  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Weichman  came  back  from  Surratts- 
ville  on  Friday  night  1 

A.  Yes,  sir, 

Q,  What  did  you  all  do  after  siipper  1 

A.  After  supper  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins  and  myself  all  retired  to  the 
parlor.  Miss  Anna  Surratt  retired  to  her  room.  She  did  not  feel  very  well 
that  night. 

Q.  Was  Mr,  Weichman  in  the  parlor  1 

A,  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  all  then  went  into  the  parlor  except  Miss  Anna,  who  went  to  bed 
feeling  badly  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Can  you  recollect  what  lime  it  was  that  you  went  up  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  time  exactly. 

Q.  Will  you  state  what  occurred  after  you  went  up  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  We  engaged  in  general  conversation, 

Q,  Who  was  the  first  of  the  party  "who  left  the  parlor  and  retired,  after  Miss 
^Anna  Surratt  1 

A.  Mr.  Weichman. 

Q.  How  long  did  Mr,  Weichman  remain  with  your  party  in  the  parlor,  after 
you  went  up  there  from  supper  ? 

A.  He  remained  there  some  time.  Miss  Jenkins  and  myself  were  teasing  him 
that  evening. 

Q.  Did  he  remain  there  as  long  as  an  hour,  or  half  an  hour  1 

A.  I  suppose  he  had  been  there  about  an  hour, 

Q.  He  then  retired,  and  left  you.  Miss  Jenkins,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  parlor? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  leave  the  parlor,  at  any  time,  after  you  went  there  from  the  sup- 
per room,  before  Mr.  Weichman  left  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  observe  anything  peculiar,  on  that  occasion,  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  manner? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  notice  any  change  in  her  conduct  more  than  usual. 
Q.  Was  there  any  apparent  nervous  excitement  about  her  manner  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  she  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be  nervous, 

Q.  Do  you  remember  of  her  walking  up  and  down  the  room  with  a  pair  of 
beads  in  her  hands,  asking  Weichman  to  pray  for  her  intentions  ? 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.   SUKRATT.  717 

A.  I  remember  of  her  walking  iip  and  down  the  room,  bat  do  not  remember 
of  her  asking  Mr.  Weichman  to  pray  for  her  intentions. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  about  his  reply  ;  that  he  never  prayed  for 
anybody's  intentions  unless  he  knew  what  they  were  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  any  conversation  of  the  kind. 

Q.  You  and  Miss  Jenkins,  as  I  understand  you,  were  conversing  together  with 
Weichraann,  during  the  time  he  remained  in  the  parlor  if 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  did  Miss  Jenkins  leave  the  parlor  ? 

A.  She  had  been  there,  I  suppose,  a  few  minutes. 

Q.  How  long  after  Weichman  left? 

A.  I  suppose  about  half  an  hour. 

Q.  Did  you  or  Miss  Jenkins  bid  Weichman  good  night  at  his  room  door,  that 
night  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  never  did. 

Q.  At  what  hour  of  the  night  did  yeu  retire  to  bed  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  ten  when  I  retired. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  being  awakened  that  night  by  persons  coming  to  the 
house  to  search  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  I  remember  being  awakened  about  two  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
by  the  door  bell  ringing. 

Q.  You  were  awakened  by  the  ringing  of  the  bell  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  get  up  when  the  bell  rung  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  get  up  when  the  bell  rung  1 

A.  She  got  up  a  few  minutes  after  I  did. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  Weichman's  coming  to  the  door  to  speak  to  her? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  their  conversation  ? 

A.  I  remember  Mr.  Weichman  rapped  at  the  door  and  said  :  "  Mrs.  Surratt, 
there  are  detectives  in  the  parlor,  to  search  the  house.  They  would  like  to  search 
your  room."  She  said  :  "  Ask  them  to  wait  a  few  moments,  and  I  will  open 
the  door  for  them." 

Q.  What  else  was  said  1 

A.  Nothing  else  was  said  until  Mrs.  Surratt  opened  the  door,  and  Mr.  Mc- 
Devitt  came  there. 

Q.  Did  she  say  to  him  at  that  time,  that  "  I  expected  the  house  to  be  searched?" 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  never  heard  her  make  any  such  remark. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  the  conversation  that  took  place  between  the  detectives  and 
Mrs.  Surratt,  Mr.  Weichman  being  present  ? 

A.  Mr.  McDevitt  came  to  Mrs.  Snrratt's  door,  bowed,  but  without  entering, 
said  he  would  like  to  search  the  other  rooms  of  the  house. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  Mr.  Clarvoe  coming  there  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not  remember  any  but  Mr.  McDevitt. 

Q.  Were  you  at  breakfast  the  next  morning  after  the  assassination — Satur- 
day morning  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  time  in  the  course  of  your  breakfast  did  Miss  Anna  Surratt  ap- 
pear at  the  table  ? 

A.  We  had  nearly  finished  breakfast  when  Miss  Anna  Surratt  entered  the 
dining  room. 

Q.  Who  were  at  the  table  at  that  time  ? 

A.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Holahan,  Mrs.  surratt,  Mr.  Weichman,  and  myself. 

Q.  Was  Miss  Jenkins  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 


718  TRIAL    OF    JOH^    H.    SUKRATT. 

Q.  State  wliether  or  not  you  heard  Miss  Anna  Surratt  say  that  the  death  of 
Lincoln  was  no  more  than  the  death  of  a  negro  in  the  northern  army  ? 

(Objected  to  by  'Mr.  Pierrepont  as  irrelevant  and  collateral,  the  testimony 
sought  to  be  contradicted  having  been  brought  out  on  cross-examination.  Ob- 
jection sustained.     Exception  reserved.) 

Q.  Did  Weichman  state  at  the  table  on  that  morning  that  he  had  his  sus- 
picions against  these  parties,  and  that  he  was  going  to  state  to  the  government 
his  suspicions ;  make  known  who  he  had  seen  Booth  in  company  with,  and  do 
all  he  could  to  bring  the  parties  to  justice  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  heard  him  make  any  such  remark. 

Q.  Did  Weichman  leave  the  table  before  you  did  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  the  night  that  Mrs.  Surratt  was  taken  to  the  office  of  the 
provost  marshal  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  At  what  hour  of  the  night  did  the  parties  who  took  her  there  get  to  the 
house  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  10  o'clock  when  they  came. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  who  was  in  the  parlor  at  the  time  Captain  Smith  came  m  ? 

A.  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Anna  Surratt,  and  myself. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  anything  about  Weichman's  asking  Miss  Surratt  to  let 
him  see  a  letter  on  the  night  of  the  assassination,  when  you  were  in  the  parlor  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  do  not  remember  it. 

Q.  Where  was  Miss  Anna  Surratt  sitting  in  the  parlor  when  Captain  Smith 
came  in  1 

A.  I  think  Miss  Surratt  was  sitting  on  the  chair  near  the  sofa. 

Q.  Where  were  you  seated  1 

A.  Miss  Jenkins  and  myself  were  sitting  on  the  sofa  together. 

Q.  Near  Miss  Anna  Surratt  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  whisper  anything  to  Anna  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Anna  Surratt  say  on  that  occasion,  "  Oh,  mother!  think  of 
being  taken  down  there  for  such  a  crime?  " 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  of  Miss  Surratt  making  any  such  remark. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  assassination  do  you  recollect  hearing  Miss  Surratt 
say  when  they  were  talking  about  the  matter,  "  Oh,  mother  !  to  think  of  that 
man  having  been  here  only  an  hour  before.  What  disgrace  it  will  bring  on  the 
house  ?  " 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  it. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mrs.  Surratt  say  in  reply,  she  thought  John  Wilk'^s 
Booth  was  only  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  Providence  to  punish  this  proud 
and  licentious  people  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  1  never  heard  such  a  remark  from  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Were  you  present  all  the  time  with  Mrs.  Surratt  in  the  parlor  that  night  ? 

A.  I  was  present  all  the  time  Mr.  Weichman  was  there. 

Q.  Now  on  the  night  that  they  came  to  arrest  Mrs.  Surratt  to  take  her  to  the 
provost  marshal's  office,  did  you  see  Wood  at  the  house  1 

A.  I  saw  a  man  there,  but  I  did  not  recognize  him  until  I  got  to  General  Au- 
gur's office. 

Q.  You  were  very  intimate  with  Mrs.  Surratt,  were  you  not? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;   I  was  in  Mrs.  Surratt's  company  very  often. 

Q.  State  whether  Mrs.  Surratt's  eyesight  was  good  or  defective  1 

A.  Her  eyesight  was  very  bad. 


TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURE  ATT.  719 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pirrrepont  : 

Q.   What  was  the  matter  with  her  eyesight  ? 

A.  I  think  Mrs.  Surratt  was  near-sighted.  I  remember  once  wheji  I  was 
out  with  her  she  failed  to  recognize  Mrs.  Kirby,  who  was  walking  on  the  same 
Bide  of  the  street  with  her. 

Q.  Did  she  ever  wear  glasses  ? 

A,  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  she  ever  wear  an  eye-glass  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  caused  you  to  think  her  near-sighted  ;  did  she  ever  tell  you  so  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  but  I  judged  so  from  her  not  recognizing  Mrs.  Kirby  on  the 
street,  and  I  heard  her  say  her  sight  was  very  bad. 

Q.  She  did  not  do  anything  to  improve  it,  by  the  way  of  glasses  or  other- 
wise ? 

A.  She  never  wore  glasses,  but  I  remember  of  often  threading  a  needle  for 
her,  because  she  could  not  do  it  herself. 

Q.  You  never  saw  her  wear  any  eye-glasses  or  spectacles  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  YoH  have  told  us  about  the  horses ;  will  you  tell  us  if  you  ave  sure  of 
the  name  of  the  man  who  brought  them  back  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  I  think  it  was  a  Mr.  David  Barry. 

Q.  Were  those  the  same  horses  that  Mrs.  Surratt  and  John  and  Mrs.  Slater 
went  away  with  ? 

A.   1  did  not  see  the  horses  when  Mr.  Barry  returned. 

Q.  What  were  the  horses  that  were  brought  back  that  you  told  about  ? 

A.  Mr.  Barry  came  and  said  he  returned  the  carriage  that  Mrs.  Surratt  bad. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  when  that  was  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  John's  note,  dated  March  26,  that  we  have 
had  in  evidence,  accompanied  it  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  that.  There  might  have  been  one,  but  I  do 
not  remember  of  seeing  it. 

Q.  You  saw  Colonel  Smith  there  that  night,  did  vou  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Colonel  Morgan  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  name  but  that  of  Colonel  Smith. 

Q.  Did  you  see  Captain  Wermerskirch  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     I  do  not  remember  any  one  else  but  Colonel  Smith. 

Q.  Mr.  Weichman  was  there  the  night  you  were  arrested  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  present  at  the  time  you  were  arrested  except  Colonel  Smith  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  any  of  them  at  all. 

Q.  There  were  more  persons  there  than  him,  were  there  not  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  there  were  a  great  many  officers  there. 

Q.  Was  Colonel  Morgan  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Was  Colonel  W^ermerskirch  there  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know. 

Q.  Have  you  read  his  testimony,  or  that  of  Colonel  Morgan,  or  heard  it  read  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  their  names  ;  I  have  read  all  the  evidence. 

Q.  On  the  night  you  were  arrested  how  many  men  did  you  see  there  besides 
Colonel  Smith  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  how  many  there  were,  but  I  remember  there  were  a 
great  many  of  them. 


720  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  of  the  expressions  that  you  have  been  asked  abou; 
made  by  anybody  at  that  time? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Merrick.     Question  withdrawn.) 

Q.  Did  she  whisper  to  Anna  f 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  her  whispering  to  Miss  Surratt. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  she  did  or  not  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  parlor,  and  I  do  not  remember  of  her  doing  it. 

Q.  Were  you  out  in  the  hall  when  Mrs.  Surratt  passed  by  an  oflScer  at  the 
door? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt,  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Anna  Surratt  and  myself,  all  passed 
out  together. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  Mrs.  Surratt  say  anything  to  Colonel  Morgan  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  her  say  anything  to  the  officer  there  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  of  her  speaking  at  all. 

Q.  You  did  not  hear  anything  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  you  go  to  bed  on  the  night  of  the  murder  of  the  President  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  ten  o'clock  when  I  retired. 

Q.  Who  went  to  bed  first,  you  or  Mrs.  Surratt? 

A.  I  retired  before  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  How  long  before  ?     Had  you  got  to  sleep  before  she  came  1 

A.  I  do  not  remember  when  Mrs.  Surratt  came. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  sleep  pretty  soon  after  you  retired  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  came  into  the  house  after  you  got  to  sleep  that  night  until  you  got 
up  again  ;  you  do  not  know,  do  you  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  anybody  coming  there. 

Q.  You  do  not  remember  of  anybody  who  came  there  while  you  were  asleep  1 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  remember  whether  anybody  came  there  or  not. 

Q.  They  might,  I  suppose,  have  come  in  while  you  were  asleep  without  you 
knowing  it  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Now  I  will  go  back  to  the  3d  of  April.  That  night  John  came  from 
Richmond  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  did  he  get  home  ? 

J^.   I  think  between  8  and  9  o'clock. 

Q.  What  day  of  the  week  was  it? 

A.  On  Monday. 

Q.  Who  was  in  the  room  when  he  came  in  ? 

A.  Miss  Jenkins,  Mrs.  Surratt,  Aliss  Anna  Surratt,  Mr.  Weichmann,  and 
myself. 

Q.  What  room  were  you  in  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  parlor. 

Q.  When  did  he  get  his  supper  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  the  exact  time. 

Q.  You  went  down,  did  you,  to  order  it  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  you  go  to  order  it  from  ] 

A.  I  went  down  to  give-the  things  to  the  girl  to  get  the  supper  with,  and  did 
give  them  to  her. 

Q.  To  whom  1 

A.  To  the  servant. 

Q.  To  what  servant? 

A.  Susan  Ann  Jackson. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  721 

Q.  Did  she  make  the  tea  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  While  you  were  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  and  see  her  make  it  1 

A.  I  did  not  stay  iu  the  kitchen,  hut  I  was  in  the  diuing-room. 
-    Q.  Did  you  stay  in  the  dining-room  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  soon  did  she  bring  it  in  1 

A.  She  did  not  bring  it  in  until  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Mr.  Surratt  came  down.     I 
had  been  there  only  a  few  minutes  before  she  brought  it  in. 

Q.  Did  she  bring  anything  else  iu  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  of  her  bringing  anything  but  the  tea. 

Q.  Did  you  stay  there  during  the  whole  time  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  long  ? 

A,  I  staid  there  until  I  heard  Mrs.  Surratt  say 

Q.  How  long  did  you  stay  ? 

A.  I  suppose  I  had  been  in  the  dining-room  fifteen  minutes. 

Q.  Who  went  out  of  the  dining-room  first  1 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Who  did  you  leave  in  the  dining  room  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt  and  Mr.  Surratt. 

Q.  Both? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  there  you  heard  something  said  about  John  looking  like  Anna,  did 
you  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  said  that  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Was  there  any  food  brought  in  at  all  1 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  of  her  bringing  in  anything  but  the  tea.     I 
set  the  table. 

Q.  What  did  you  set  upon  the  table  ? 

A.  I  placed  some  bread,  butter,  and  ham  on  it. 

Q.  Did  Mrs.  Surratt  partake  of  the  supper  with  John  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  she  sat  down  to  the  table  with  him. 

Q.  Did  you  partake  of  the  supper  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  had  my  supper  before. 

Q.  Mrs.  Surratt  had  not  had  her'a  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q,  And  she  ate  with  him,  but  you  did  not  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  whether  she  ate  with  him  or  not.     I  remained  there  a 
few  minutes. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  said  about  any  clothes  at  that  time  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  remember  of  hearing  anything. 

Q.  When  did  you  next  see  John  1 

A.  It  was  M'hen  I  was  called  down  here  as  a  witness  for  the  prosecutiou. 

Q.  Recently  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  After  you  saw  him  at  the  supper  table  on  the  3d  of  April  you  never  saw 
him  again  until  you  saw  him  here  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  do  not  know  where  he  went ;  you  did  not  see  him  anywhere  else? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  saw  him  anywhere  else  ? 


722  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SUKRATT. 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  not  you  see  him  up  in  the  parlor  after  that  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  did  not  see  him  in  the  dining-room  after  that? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  go  to  the  theatre  that  night  1 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  did  not  go  to  the  theatre  on  the  3d  of  April. 

Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  you  went  from  the  diuing-room  1 

A.  I  went  up  into  the  parlor. 

Q.  Who  did  you  find  there  ? 

A.  Miss  Jenkins,  Miss  Surratt,  and  Mr.  Weichman  ? 

Q.  Did  John  Surratt  come  into  the  parlor  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  If  he  ha'^l  come  in  you  would  have  seen  him  ? 

A.  I  saw  him  in  the  back  parlor. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  in  the  back  parlor  after  he  had  been  dovvn  in  the  diuing- 
room  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  him  with  in  the  back  parlor  ? 

A.  I  was  in  the  parlor,  and  Mrs.  Surratt  called  me  out  and  told  me  that  John 
had  a  very  bad  headache,  and  asked  me  if  I  had  any  cologne  that  I  could  give 
him. 

Q.  Did  you  see  John  in  the  back  parlor  after  he  ate  supper  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  see  him  anywhere  else  after  he  ate  supper  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q    Was  that  the  last  time  you  ever  saw  him  until  you  saw  him  here  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  time  was  that  when  you  saw  him  in  the  back  parlor,  and  which  you 
now  say  was  the  last  time  ? 

A.  I  do  not  remember ;  I  suppose  about  9  or  half  past. 

Q.  Who  else  was  in  the  back  parlor  with  him  ? 

A.  Mrs.  Surratt. 

Q.  Nobody  else  ? 

A    No,  sir. 

Q.  Was  Mr.  Weichman  then  in  the  front  parlor  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

-Q.  Were  the  doors  open  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Were  they  closed  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  On  the  night  of  the  murder  you  say  you  went  to  bed  about  10  o'clock. 
Do  you  remember  at  what  time  in  the  morning  you  were  awakened  t 

A.  I  think  it  was  about  2  or  half  past  2  o'clock. 

Q.  How  were  you  awakened  ? 

A.  By  the  door  bell  ringing. 

Q,.  Did  anybody  come  to  Mrs.  Surratt's  door  ? 

A.  Mr.  Weichman  came  there  and  rapped. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 
Q.  You  have  spoken  of  Mrs.  Surratt's  defective  eyesight.     Will  you  please 
tell  the  jury  whether  she  was  in  the  habit  of  reading  or  sewing  after  gaslight  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  I  never  saw  Mrs   Surratt  read  or  sew  after  gaslight. 
Q.  Did  she  give  any  reason  for  not  sewing  or  reading  after  gaslight  ? 
A.   She  said  her  sight  was  not  very  strong. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  II.  SURRATT.  723 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  of  her  receiving  a  letter  from  John  Surratt  on  Friday, 
the  dav  of  the  assassination  1 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Objection  sustained.) 

Q.  Do  you  know  by  letters  from  him  or  from  your  own  observation  where 
he  went  ? 

(Objected  to  by  Mr.  Pierrepont.     Objection  sustained.     Exception  reserved.) 

Charles  B.  Stewart  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  At  Elmira,  New  York.  ^ 

Q.  What  is  your  business  ? 

A.  Merchant  tailor.     I  am  in  the  clothing  business. 

Q.  Where  were  you  residing,  and  in  what  business  were  you  engaged  in 
April,  1865? 

A.  I  was  engaged  in  the  same  town,  in  the  same  business,  on  the  same  street, 
but  in  a  different  store  from  what  I  am  now. 

Q.  State  whether  your  store  was  all  in  one  room  or  whether  you  had  more 
than  one  room. 

A.  There  were  tvvo  stores  connected  together. 

Q.  Did  you  carry  on  the  same  business  in  both  or  were  they  different  ? 

A.  We  had  different  departments.  One  was  the  hat,  cap,  boot,  and  shoe 
store,  and  the  other  Avas  merchant  tailoring,  clothing,  and  gents'  furnishing 
business. 

Q    Will  you  state  where  that  store  was  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  Nos.  20  and  22  Lake  street,  Elmira,  New  York. 

Q.  State  whether  you  were  in  the  store  during  the  day  of  the  14th  of  April, 
1865. 

A.  I  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  a  gentleman  coming  in  that  day  to  speak  about  getting 
a  suit  of  clothes  there,  who  had  on  anything  peculiar  in  the  way  of  dress  ? 

A.  On  the  13th  or  14th  of  April,  1  do. 

Q.  Which  ? 

A.  I  cannot  say  which,  but  one  or  the  other. 

Q.  Describe  as  well  as  you  can  his  dress. 

A.  It  was  a  style  of  cut  which  I  had  never  seen  before,  nor  have  I  since, 
until  to-day.     I  refer  to  the  cut  and  the  make  of  the  coat. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  the  color  ? 

A.  It  was  gray,  mixed  with  tweed,  of  foreign  manufacture.  It  was  what  is 
called  a  skeleton  coat,  that  is,  made  without  lining.  It  was  cut  full,  pleated, 
and  gathered  at  the  waist  by  a  belt.  The  style  of  manufacture  is,  I  believe, 
in  use  in  Canada. 

Q.  How  h»ng  did  that  person  remain  in  the  store  ? 

A.  I  should  say  I  saw  him  twice.  That  is  I  stepped  from  one  store  to  the 
other  and  saw  him  twice.  He  was  there  from  ten  to  twenty  minutes.  I  cannot 
speak  very  definitely  as  to  the  time. 

Q.  State  whether  your  attention  was  or  not  particularly  directed  to  him. 

A.  It  was. 

Q.  Do  you  recollect  his  appearance  ? 

A.  His  face  and  manner,  I  do. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  his  voice  in  conversation  without  speaking  to  him  yourself  r 

A.  I  did. 

Q.  Have  you  seen  that  person  since  ? 

A.  I  think  1  have. 

Q.  When  and  where  1 


724  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

A.  To-day,  in  the  jail  and  in  this  place. 

(The  prisoner  was  here  requested  to  stand  up.) 

Q.  State  whether  that  is  the  man.     (Pointing  to  the  prisoner.) 

A.  I  believe  that  to  be  the  man. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepoxt  : 

Q.  You  have  not  much  doubt  about  this  being  the  man. 

A.  I  have  not. 

Q.  Will  you  tell  us  what  day  of  the  month  it  was  ? 

A.  It  was  either  the  13th  or  the  14th. 

Q.  Which? 

A.  I  cannot  tell  which. 

Q.  Why  cannot  you  fix  the  day  ? 

A.  Because  it  was  while  my  partner  was  in  New  York  purchasing  goods.  He 
was  gone  those  two  days,  and  this  man  came  in  then  ;  but  on  which  one  of  the 
two  days  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Q.  You  are  sure  it  was  while  your  partner  was  gone  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  And  you  know  he  was  gone  on  the  13th  and  14th  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir.     1  tell  that  from  my  books. 

Q.  Did  he  get  back  the  14th  ? 

A.  He  got  back  on  the  morning  of  the  15th. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  You  say  you  fix  it  by  the  fact  of  your  partner  being  absent  at  the  time. 
Please  state  whether  anything  passed  in  your  hearing  in  reference  to  your  partner 
being  out  of  town. 

Mr.  PlERRBPONT.  I  object.  We  want  the  facts,  not  the  reasoning  of  the 
witness. 

The  Court,  I  do  not  see  how  any  conversation  of  this  kind  can  be  given  in 
evidence.     The  question  is  ruled  out. 

By  Mr.  Merrick  : 

Q.  What  time  was  this  ? 
A.  It  was  after  my  return  from  dinner. 
Q.  At  what  time  do  you  dine  ? 

A.  At  12  o'clock.     We  have  good  country  hours  there. 
Q.  On  the  13th  or  14th  after  12  o'clock? 
"^A.  Yes,  sir. 

By  the  Court  : 

Q.  How  long  does  it  take  to  go  from  Elmira  to  New  York  ? 

A,  The  express  train  runs  through  in  twelve  hours. 

Mr.  Bradley  suggested  that  all  that  matter  regarding  the  movements  of  the 
train  and  the  time  occupied  in  travelling  from  point  to  point  on  this  route  would 
be  given  in  evidence  by  them. 

Mr.  Pierrepont  said  if  counsel  for  the  defence  didn't  offer  such  proof  the 
prosecution  would. 

John  Cass  sworn  and  examined. 

By  Mr.  Bradley  : 

Q.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

A.  At  Elmira. 

Q.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

A.  Assessor  of  the  city  at  present. 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  725 

Q.  Where  were  you  residing  in  April,  1865  ? 

A.  In  Elmiia.  1  kept  a  clothing  store  at  the  corner  of  "Water  and  Baldwin 
streets. 

Q.  Do  you  remember  any  particular  incident  which  occurred  on  the  morning 
of  the  15th  of  April,  after  the  news  of  the  assassination  of  the  President  was 
received  in  Elmira  1 

A.  That  morning  I  got  the  paper  about  half  past  seven  o'clock  with  the  news  of 
the  assassination.  In  consequence  of  the  news  in  the  paper,  I  staid  at  home 
probably  longer  than  I  would  have  done.  I  got  down  to  the  store  about  quarter 
to  eight  or  perhaps  eight  o'clock.  My  store  was  directly  opposite  the  telegraph 
office,  and  when  I  got  down  there  I  went  over  to  the  telegraph  office  and  inquired 
the  news  of  an  operator  who  was  a  personal  friend  of  mine.  He  told  me  they 
had  received  uothing  since  the  news  of  the  assassination,  but  as  soon  as  they 
did  he  would  let  me  know.  I  staid  around  there  some  time  with  other  friends. 
Shortly  after  nine  o'clock  news  came  of  the  death  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  I  im- 
mediately walked  over  to  my  store  and  told  the  clerks  to  close  up. 

Q.  This  was  early  in  the  morning,  before  any  public  order  had  been  issued  ? 
A.  Yes,  sir.  They  had  received  no  public  news  of  tlie  death.  I  then  went 
and  stood  at  the  front  door  of  the  store.  By  that  time  the  bulletin  had  been 
placed  on  the  side  door.  I  at  that  time  noticed  a  gentleman  coming  across 
the  street  whom  I  thought,  from  his  dress,  was  a  friend  of  mine  from  Canada. 
That  was  my  first  idea  when  I  saw  him  coming  across  the  street ;  but  I  soon 
saw  it  was  not,  and  I  then  turned  and  started  to  go  back  into  the  store.  I  had 
not,  probably,  got  more  than  ten  feet  into  the  store,  when  this  party  whom 
I  had  observed,  came  in.  He  inquired  for  some  white  shirts.  He  asked 
me  for  a  particular  make,  which  make  I  did  not  keep,  and  told  him  so, 
hut  proceeded  to  show  him  some  other  descriptions  of  white  shirts.  He  exam- 
ined them,  but  said  he  would  rather  have  those  of  the  make  which  he  had  been 
accustomed  to  wearing.  At  that  time  I  made  a  remark  that  we  had  received 
some  very  bad  news.  He  asked,  "What?"  I  said  to  him,  "Of  the  death  of 
Abraham  Lincoln."  The  party  made  an  answer  to  my  remark  which  at  the 
first  commencement  I  took  to  be  a  little  disrespectful,  and  I  felt  rather  incensed, 
but  before  he  concluded  I  was  satisfied  no  disrespect  was  intended.  My  idea 
was  that  he  was  a  Canadian  and  had  no  sympathy  with  our  people. 

Q.  What  was  the  remark  1 

A.  I  cannot  recall  it,  but  I  remember  the  feehng  I  had  at  the  time. 

Q.  His  explanation  satisfied  you  that  he  meant  no  disrespect? 

A.  Yes,  sir.  I  thought  that  he  was  a  Canadian  who  had  no  sympathy  with 
us,  and  who  did  not  feel  as  we  felt  about  the  matter. 

Q.  Can  you  describe  his  dress  ? 

A.  He  had  on  darkish  pants ;  a  kind  of  mixed  blue  coat — I  should  call  it — 
pleated,  with  a  belt  around  the  waist.  That  was  the  first  thing  that  caused  my 
attention  to  be  drawn  to  him. 

Q.  Have  you  ever  seen  that  man  since  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Where  have  you  seen  him? 

A.  In  the  jail  down  here. 

(The  prisoner  was  requested  to  stand  up.) 

Q.  Look  at  that  man  (pointing  to  the  prisoner)  and  state  if  he  is  or  not  the 
man. 

A.  That  is  the  man  I  saw  there. 

By  a  Juror.  Was  that  on  the  15th? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  while  closing  the  store  after  seeing  the  news. 

Cross-examined  by  Mr.  Pierrepo.mt  : 
Q.  How  did  you  get  the  first  news  of  the  assassination  1 
A.  At  home  in  the  morning  paper. 


726  TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT. 

Q.  Wliat  paper  ? 

A.  The  Elraira  Advertiser. 

Q.  At  M'hat  time  did  you  see  the  Elmira  Advertiser  ? 

A.  Between  7  and  7J  in  the  morning. 

Q.  That  was  on  Saturday  morning,  the  15th? 

A.  I  do  not  remember  the  day. 

Q    The  next  morning  after  the  assassination  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  think  it  was  the  15th  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  the  first  you  heard  of  it  ? 

A    Yes,  sir. 

Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  heard  of  it  ? 

A.  I  went  into  my  dining  room  and  took  breakfast  with  my  family  ;  read  the 
news,  and  felt  very  badly  about  it. 

Q.  When  did  you  go  to  the  telegraph  office. 

A.  It  must  have  been  between  eight  and  half  past  eight. 

Q.  Who  did  you  see  there  ? 

A.  Mr.  Palmer. 

Q.  Did  you  get  any  more  news  ? 

A    I  did  not  at  that  time.     No  other  news  had  come. 

Q.  When  did  this  man,  who  looked  like  a  Canadian,  cross  the  street  1 

A.  I  should  say  it  was  between  the  hours  of  nine  and  ten,  probably  half  past 
nine. 

Q.  Was  he  dirty  or  was  he  clean  ? 

A.  Clean. 

Q    What  had  he  on  his  head  1 

A.  He  had  a  hat  of  some  kind.     I  cannot  tell  what  kind. 

Q.  What  kind  of  trowsers  did  he  wear  1 

A.  A  lightish  pair  of  trowsers.     I  should  think  drab. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  peculiar  about  them  1 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of.  I  do  not  remember  noticing  particularly  any  por- 
tion of  his  dress  except  his  blouse. 

Q.  Was  there  anything  peculiar  in  his  hat  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of. 

Q.  What  kind  of  a  beard  had  he  ? 

A.  He  had  a  goatee,  which  came  from  about  the  side  of  the  lips  round. 

Q.  Pretty  long  ? 

A..  Rather  short. 

Q.  Had  he  anything  else? 

A    I  think  not. 

Q.  You  are  very  sure  he  had  a  goatee  coming  around  here,  under  the  chin  1 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  no  doubt  of  that  ? 

A.  I  think  not.     That  is  my  impression. 

Q.  Had  he  a  moustache,  the  same  as  he  has  now  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  What  color  was  the  goatee  that  he  had  here,  around  under  the  chin  ? 

A.  Rather  a  dark  brown. 

Q.  The  same  color  it  is  now  ? 

A.  No,  sir.     My  impression  is  that  it  was  rather  darker  than  it  is  now. 

Q.  Did  you  think  it  was  dyed  ? 

A.  I  did  not  look  at  him  enough  to  be  able  to  say. 

Q.  Was  it  the  same  color  then  as  it  is  now  ? 

A.  It  was  darker. 

Q.  Do  you  think  it  was  an  unnatural  color  ? 


TRIAL  OF  JOHN  H.  SURRATT.  727 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  think  it  was  an  unnatural  color. 

Q.  He  has  a  moustache  now  1 

A.  Yes,  sir;  a  light  one. 

Q.  And  that  he  didn't  have  then? 

A.  1  did  not  notice  any. 

Q.  How  was  his  hair  then  ? 

A.  I  could  not  tell,  because  I  did  not  notice  enough  to  see. 

Q.  Do  you  know  Colonel  Foster  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;   I  do  not. 

Q.  Have  you  not  been  here  before  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  a  gentleman  here  on  this  subject  when  you  were  here 
before  1 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  anybody  on  the  subject ! 

A.  I  talked  with  Mr.  Bradley  and  Mr.  Merrick. 

Q.  Nobody  else. 

A.  Not  tliat  I  recollect  of  now. 

Q.  Don't  you  know  Colonel  Foster?     Did  not  he  see  you  at  Elniira  ? 

A.  I  saw  a  gentleman  on  the  train  who  represented  himself  to  be  Colonel 
Foster.     I  was  not  introduced  to  him,  and,  probably,  I  would  not  recognize  him. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  that  man  here  when  you  were  here  before  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Is  there  any  other  John  Cass  that  you  know  of? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Q.  If  you  did  not  talk  with  Colonel  Foster  did  you  talk  with  any  other  man 
here  except  Mr.  Bradley  and  Mr.  Merrick  ? 

A.  No,  sir;  except  the  parties  who  came  with  me  from  Elmira. 

Q.  Who  came  with  you  ? 

A.  Mr.  Atkinson,  Mr.  Carroll,  and  Mr.  Fowler. 

Q.  Nobody  else  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  a  gentleman  from  Canada,  v/hose  name  I  dp  not  remember. 

Mr.  Bradlky.  Mr.  Baylin. 

Witness.  I  believe  that  is  it. 

Q.  When  were  you  here  last  ? 

A.  I  think  it  was  three  weeks  ago. 

Q.  At  that  time  didn't  you  go  over  to  the  jail  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  the  prisoner  there  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  have  a  conversation  out  here,  near  the  city  hall,  on  that  subject 
with  Colonel  Foster  after  you  had  been  to  the  jail  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  with  Mr.  Knapp  ? 

A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  him  ? 

A.  Yes,  sir;  very  well. 

Q.  -1  )id  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Knapp,  in  Elmira.  about  it  ? 

A.  We  apoke  about  it  while  coming  on  here,  but  no  particular  conversation. 

Q.  Did  you  state  to  him  after  you  had  been  to  the  jail  that  you  did  not  re- 
cognize the  man  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  I  did  not. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about  it  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  Colonel  Fo.stcr. 

Q.  Well,  the  one  who  was  pointed  out  to  you  as  Colonel  Foster? 

A.  Nobody  was  pointed  out  to  me  aa  Colonel  Foster. 


728  TRIAL    OF    JOHN    H.    SURRATT.' 

Q.  Then  you  did  not  talk  to  him  on  the  subject  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  knQW  this  gentleman  sitting  at  my  right,  (assistant  district  attor- 
ney Wilson  ?) 
A.  I  do  not. 

Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  across  the  street  over  here  near  his  office  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  didn't  say  a  word  to  him  ? 
A.  I  do  not  remember  it. 
Q.  At  the  Toot  of  the  stairs  1 
Witness.  When  1 

Mr.  PiERKEPoNT.  Three  weeks  ago,  or  about  that,  when  you  were  here. 
A.  No,  sir.  ,  I  saw  you,  and  spoke  to  you,  and  may  have  spoken  to  him  at 
the  same  time. 

Q.  Didn't  you  see  this  gentleman  standing  with  me  at  the  time  ? 
A,  I  presume  he  came  there  while  you  and  I  were  speaking. 
Q.  Did  you  talk  with  him  ? 
A.  No,  sir ;  I  believe  not. 
Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn't  you  tell  him  what  you  knew,  and  what  you  didn't  know  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  not  ask  him — this  gentleman,  Mr.  Wilson — if  you  could  not  go 
home  ? 

A.  No,  sir ;  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

Q.  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  knew  nothing  about  this  person  ? 
A.  No,  sir  ;   I  did  not. 
Q.  Nothing  of  the  kind  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  at  all  to  him  about  the  case  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  am  aware  of.     I   do  not  think  the  case  was  spoken  of.     I  do 
not  remember  speaking  to  him  at  all.     I  remember  speaking  to  you. 
Q.  Was  Mr.  Knapp  present  1 

A.  Yes,  sir ;  and  was  going  to  introduce  me,  when  I  told  him  that  I  knew 
you  from  seeing  you  in  Elmira  four  years  ago. 

Q.  Did  you  say  anything  to  Mr.  Wilson,  in  Mr.  Knapp's  presence,  on  the 
subject  of  this  case  ? 

A.  No,  sir  ;  he  did  not  mention  the  case  at  all. 
-    Q.  Did  you  here,  or  elsewhere,  say  anything  to  Mr.  Knapp  to  the  effect  that 
you  did  not  know  anything  about  this  prisoner  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you,  in  Mr.  Knapp's  presence,  ask  Mr.  Wilson  if  he  did  not  think 
you  could  go  home  ? 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  stand  across  the  street,  at  the  foot  of  the  stairs,  with  this  gen- 
tleman (Mr.  Wilson)  and  Mr.  Knapp  1 

A.  I  do  not  think  I  did.     I  do  not  remember  of  doing  it. 
Q.  Do  you  know  where  the  district  attorney's  office  is  1 
A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  been  across  the  street,  near  the  corner  1 
A.  1  have  been  to  the  corner — to  Mr.  Bradley's  office.  , 

Q.  I  mean  near  the  corner  1 

A.  I  saw  Mr.  Knapp  there,  and  I  remember  Mr.  Knapp  was  going  to  intro- 
duce me  to  you,  and  we  walked  a  little  further  from  the  corner,  when  some 
other  parties  came  up  and  called  your  attention,  and  1  left  ? 


.  ' 


I 


>o..>5>  ,.>>!>  S>X^  'iMy^  - 

»^     J»-i  .  ^-*   >~»      '^  j>  ^^    3>>>  Ji->?.3)    - 


1  >/>:?: 


V-»ll>  -    ->     J» 


>  >  ■:>  >)  > 


-a   •■>    >o 

»  '  >     >» 

»  >  >  > 

p_>  .»  ^,=> ^ 


'>^  J-' 


->:-^  ^^^A 


—  rS»   3> 


:  ■^^>'>^^Sv:>^^^>^'^- 


>   ~>:»>j.3»  .; 


>  :>> 


5    >  > 


-■  2>  y^^^  ->  ^>  »  s 


^  >  >>v 


-r>> 


1^    iiSii^ 


>;>j3»z>3>:>:3>> 


3?-^ 


55" 


►  ,»^^ 


•  >> 


>>->iaj 


^ 

^>^ 


►     JK>'^!^ 


>    ^  ^  ^  >  > 
>    >    >   V 

^  ^  ^-i  J 


>  yyjs>:^: 


3  >  a>  J& 

;•  •  ■>   >*  ^»   »  >:  . 


►  >         5 

3o»  £> 


>  :>2> 


^>>2 

»°^ 

fc: 

-5^  .•  >>■" 

^^ 

^->    >^ 

Vl 

-»       .-)» -I 

>~^  "1 

^^ 


>^y^^^^3^ 


^   ^ 


5>^  ^ » >' 


^»>3»a» 


:»>  >is» 


2»rm    ^f 


^^?* 


>    :>   : 


>  J» 


>>^  ).:>:»<'  ^5> 


>;>  ^:or2m 


•    :):>3 


•  ■>> 


3>      ,^ 


>  a  ' 

>^ 

»- 

>> 

>^ 

^>^^^ 

f    » 

v:> 

^?^ 

>-> 

>j»  7 

^^ 

■"4?  ■•  3 

» 

■^ 

^>  >  J 

» 

3 

>J>     .     Sfc 

-si 

>»         -^ 

^• 

»     :> 

» 

^ 

>>    ■< 

-•^S 

>»     ^ 

jjH[ 

►»  ^ 

^B 

'>    :> 

-^3 

»    ^ 

J 

""^1 

»  '  > 

^ 

■^ 

""^S 

o>  :> 

^s 

*^  ~> 

s 

;^S 

ir^  -* 

-^ 

*^S 

2> 


>         JO 


>  J 


>  >  >■ . 

>  >  »" 
.>  >  •) 

»  >  )■  » 


>  :>  :>  .. 


■;^:iS 


5  ^\^ 


>»  ^ 


>^  J> 


^>  :> 


y^  > 


.\>i;. 


>  ):»& 

>  ^ 


'y^>?  >  ?i 


^  -•>•:> 


^)a5>>>*^3 


-y    '■■'br 


^^y.-  ts»A>  >>>^^y  mo. 

^  » >->  '>' , 


s» 


Y->?>^^>_ 


_J>  3S>  3.  j'^'3  3:^' 


^i>Ov5 


'  Jf>     ■>;>,?  !> 

■>  ».j»a 

^  ^'  \^  *  ^ 

•    »    !»)  . 

k  !>^ \^^  > 

^  :»  5» 

V''^>^^  :>'j>-5^ 

->  ):>-5» 

-,  jfc>'    'L>  )  y 

'  »    5» 

^^\1k    '^>^- 

->:»   >:>^ 

^\^.'^07> 

>  ^iJJ  »j> 

■^.V:-.  ■•  :»  :i^ 

^  -»^  .»:> 

